Jump to content

American War Dodgers


tml12

Recommended Posts

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...zman060208.html

Back in the news again are these American war dodgers. Look, this has nothing to do with the draft. Hinzman signed a country to join the Army. This means you fight whatever war Congress asks you to. There is no fine print on the form that says you can "choose to fight whatever wars you believe are just."

Whether you are left wing or right wing you must admit that when one chooses to fight, they made there choice. Furthermore, he will not be tortured if he went to the States. He will go to jail and that will be that.

I also love when he said "he could never bring himself to kill a man." Not only can you be made to kill, with proper training, but also what did he think he was going to do in the Army? Drink tea and play with GI Joe dolls? :rolleyes:

I was not a huge supporter of the war in Iraq and many of my views are quite libertarian...however, I just don't like this whole thing. Canada needs to take a stand and make the right decision here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

He doesn't claim to be a conscientious objector. He claims to be against the Iraq war because it's illegal and violates human rights. According to the article cited, international law allows one to object to specific wars. Seems to me he has grounds for objecting to a war that's deemed illegal and violates human rights, and furthermore, I think he has an obligation not to participate in the violation of human rights. I think more people should do that instead of blindly following orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you are left wing or right wing you must admit that when one chooses to fight, they made there choice.

I agree. No real conscientious objector would agree to fight in the first place.

When I saw this I actually laughed at these criminals...

The guy is claiming he is a pacifist and only joined the army to find meaning in his life. :lol:

Last time I checked, armies fight wars. In the US, your probably going to get called to one someday. The guy balked on his commitments and ran away. Hopefully we send him back.

It looks like Monte Soldberg is going to get his first real issue, the lawyer was saying he's going to appeal to the minister if the judge sends him on back home. Your right, this isn't a draft issue. This is a violation of contract issue, the guy is an idiot, they should send him to Iraq and have him serve his sentance there.

Good thing he deserted over here instead of screwing his buddies over there though, right on for him admitting to his failures early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

He fought in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq he's objecting to.

"Well, I think it was -- if you are ever going to go destroy a country or wreak havoc on a country, it would need to be justified. Every justification or rationale that we have ever offered for going to Iraq has been bogus. There were no weapons of mass destruction there. There have been no links established between Saddam and international terrorists, and then the notion that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq is -- we'll see if that comes to fruition, but I don't think we'll see it, unless it's convenient to America's agenda. So anyway, I felt that we had attacked Iraq without any defensive basis, and I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...zman060208.html

Back in the news again are these American war dodgers. Look, this has nothing to do with the draft. Hinzman signed a country to join the Army. This means you fight whatever war Congress asks you to. There is no fine print on the form that says you can "choose to fight whatever wars you believe are just."

Whether you are left wing or right wing you must admit that when one chooses to fight, they made there choice. Furthermore, he will not be tortured if he went to the States. He will go to jail and that will be that.

I also love when he said "he could never bring himself to kill a man." Not only can you be made to kill, with proper training, but also what did he think he was going to do in the Army? Drink tea and play with GI Joe dolls? :rolleyes:

I was not a huge supporter of the war in Iraq and many of my views are quite libertarian...however, I just don't like this whole thing. Canada needs to take a stand and make the right decision here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one questioned the legality of the war. The lawyers said that the question of the legality of the war is irrelavent...furthermore, can we question the legality of the war?

It seems to me he is living off tax dollars by appealing. I don't question the man is a decent human being, I do question his not understanding his commitments.

It clearly says on a recruitment form, you sign here you live up to these committments. He has not understood that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He fought in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq he's objecting to.

"Well, I think it was -- if you are ever going to go destroy a country or wreak havoc on a country, it would need to be justified. Every justification or rationale that we have ever offered for going to Iraq has been bogus. There were no weapons of mass destruction there. There have been no links established between Saddam and international terrorists, and then the notion that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq is -- we'll see if that comes to fruition, but I don't think we'll see it, unless it's convenient to America's agenda. So anyway, I felt that we had attacked Iraq without any defensive basis, and I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey."

Nope, I respectfully say you're way out of whack saying that. Once a person signs up in the military, they're commiting to do their term generally and war is part of the risk. A soldier has a responsibility, (a big one), to maintain certain composure on a battlefield and not commit crimes against humanity within his scope or job level.

They have to leave the policy decisions to people assigned that task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, while I am sympathetic to your argument, tml12, you should see the advertising and recruitment messaging used for the Army (especially the Guard/Reserves).

Nothing about "fighting in Iraq." Instead you "help your community during natural disasters" and "stand as the last line of defense against drug dealers."

And the recruiters from the army are notorious for their "agressive" tactics.

Not that I have to worry -- I'm not "good enough" to serve in the army (just good enough to pay taxes for its largesse). ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard of people joining the military to get a free education and then whine when they have to serve abroad. Like reservists for example. I have a problem with that attitude and regardless of recruitment tactics, people surely must know that a military position carries risk. You have to be prepared to take the bad with the good.

I think the USA and Canada should be able to have some sort of extradition process for military types taking shelter from obligation. In other words, a military person shouldn't be treated as a normal citizen in this regard. Uncle Sam wants his soldier back and Uncle Stephen should give him up, and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, while I am sympathetic to your argument, tml12, you should see the advertising and recruitment messaging used for the Army (especially the Guard/Reserves).

Nothing about "fighting in Iraq." Instead you "help your community during natural disasters" and "stand as the last line of defense against drug dealers."

And the recruiters from the army are notorious for their "agressive" tactics.

Not that I have to worry -- I'm not "good enough" to serve in the army (just good enough to pay taxes for its largesse). ;)

Yank,

I knew we were bound to disagree about something sooner or later :o (second beer offer still outstanding... ;) )

I know what you are saying about the tactics of the recruiters. I know for a fact that they target low income areas and talk about money for university, etc. I also love this Army TV commercial they show here sometimes (there is a son playing pool with his dad and the son goes "it's for my country and it's the reserves" and the dad goes "with quality training and you'll be able to go to college" and the son goes "yeah, they'll only call me when they need me...plus it's the Army." So I am like...yeah he'll get the 101 syllabus and than that'll be the end of his university education...

But the Hinzman thing bothers me. The draft is a much different issue...no one should be forced into the trenches. However, this is a guy who signed a form, went to fight, then said he couldn't kill anyone. I respect the fact, but instead of bailing on your signed word, ask to go somewhere else. Teenagers don't realize the power their signatures have...even before they are 18.

I don't want this guy living on the system. I don't want to have to pay for his mistake of signing the contract. I feel for him...but his life is in no jeopardy if he goes back to the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He fought in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq he's objecting to.

"Well, I think it was -- if you are ever going to go destroy a country or wreak havoc on a country, it would need to be justified. Every justification or rationale that we have ever offered for going to Iraq has been bogus. There were no weapons of mass destruction there. There have been no links established between Saddam and international terrorists, and then the notion that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq is -- we'll see if that comes to fruition, but I don't think we'll see it, unless it's convenient to America's agenda. So anyway, I felt that we had attacked Iraq without any defensive basis, and I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey."

Nope, I respectfully say you're way out of whack saying that. Once a person signs up in the military, they're commiting to do their term generally and war is part of the risk. A soldier has a responsibility, (a big one), to maintain certain composure on a battlefield and not commit crimes against humanity within his scope or job level.

They have to leave the policy decisions to people assigned that task.

How can anyone prove the war in Iraq was illegal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok let me just solve this little issue right here and now. I served for 8 years in the United States Marine corps, less than 30 percent of active military personell see actually combat. This guy was a coward pure and simple, If you voluntarily take the commitment to the United States Armed forces than you damn well better live up to it. Does that mean you kill innocent civilians because your CO tells you to, no, does that mean you deploy as you are ordered to, yes it does. This guy deserves to go to jail, period, After that, dishonorable discharge, then revoke his citizenship. Let whatever country that wants him can have him. He wasnt drafted, he wasnt ordered to mow down citizens. Bottom line this guy was a pure chicken shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

He fought in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq he's objecting to.

"Well, I think it was -- if you are ever going to go destroy a country or wreak havoc on a country, it would need to be justified. Every justification or rationale that we have ever offered for going to Iraq has been bogus. There were no weapons of mass destruction there. There have been no links established between Saddam and international terrorists, and then the notion that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq is -- we'll see if that comes to fruition, but I don't think we'll see it, unless it's convenient to America's agenda. So anyway, I felt that we had attacked Iraq without any defensive basis, and I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey."

Nope, I respectfully say you're way out of whack saying that. Once a person signs up in the military, they're commiting to do their term generally and war is part of the risk. A soldier has a responsibility, (a big one), to maintain certain composure on a battlefield and not commit crimes against humanity within his scope or job level.

They have to leave the policy decisions to people assigned that task.

He obviously recognizes and accepts that war is part of the risk of serving in the military. He did serve in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq that he's against, and I think he should stand up to his principles there. There's a huge difference between fighting a defensive and an offensive war. Just because he signed up doesn't mean he shouldn't even question what they tell him to do. People get charged with war crimes when they don't question participating in the violation of human rights. He gets that point across when he said "... I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey."

Also, international law does say one has the right to object to specific wars. There's a reason for that. Not all wars are "defensive." Defending one's country is a totally different matter from starting a war.

As for recruitment tactics: that's a real sore spot with me. They call kids who aren't even old enough to take a drink (they get their names and phone numbers from the schools, thanks to the No Child Left Behind act) and tell them what a wonderful opportunity it is to join the reserves. Easy money. They don't mention fighting. They definitely take advantage of them. They aren't old enough to have good enough judgement to drink a beer, but they do have the maturity to sign up for the military and fight in a war. That's what's way out of whack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He fought in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq he's objecting to.

"Well, I think it was -- if you are ever going to go destroy a country or wreak havoc on a country, it would need to be justified. Every justification or rationale that we have ever offered for going to Iraq has been bogus. There were no weapons of mass destruction there. There have been no links established between Saddam and international terrorists, and then the notion that we're going to bring democracy to Iraq is -- we'll see if that comes to fruition, but I don't think we'll see it, unless it's convenient to America's agenda. So anyway, I felt that we had attacked Iraq without any defensive basis, and I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey."

Nope, I respectfully say you're way out of whack saying that. Once a person signs up in the military, they're commiting to do their term generally and war is part of the risk. A soldier has a responsibility, (a big one), to maintain certain composure on a battlefield and not commit crimes against humanity within his scope or job level.

They have to leave the policy decisions to people assigned that task.

He obviously recognizes and accepts that war is part of the risk of serving in the military. He did serve in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq that he's against, and I think he should stand up to his principles there. There's a huge difference between fighting a defensive and an offensive war. Just because he signed up doesn't mean he shouldn't even question what they tell him to do. People get charged with war crimes when they don't question participating in the violation of human rights. He gets that point across when he said "... I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey."

Also, international law does say one has the right to object to specific wars. There's a reason for that. Not all wars are "defensive." Defending one's country is a totally different matter from starting a war.

As for recruitment tactics: that's a real sore spot with me. They call kids who aren't even old enough to take a drink (they get their names and phone numbers from the schools, thanks to the No Child Left Behind act) and tell them what a wonderful opportunity it is to join the reserves. Easy money. They don't mention fighting. They definitely take advantage of them. They aren't old enough to have good enough judgement to drink a beer, but they do have the maturity to sign up for the military and fight in a war. That's what's way out of whack.

We know the recruitment tactics are controversial...

His whole basis was the war is illegal...how can it be proven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
How can anyone prove the war in Iraq was illegal?

All of the reasons for starting the war have been proven false, so it wasn't a defensive war. There were no grounds for it.

His whole basis was the war is illegal...how can it be proven?

He's also saying that the war is violating human rights. Seems to me starting a war does violate human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can anyone prove the war in Iraq was illegal?

All of the reasons for starting the war have been proven false, so it wasn't a defensive war. There were no grounds for it.

His whole basis was the war is illegal...how can it be proven?

He's also saying that the war is violating human rights. Seems to me starting a war does violate human rights.

Ah,

Human rights violations happened in World War II. Does that make that war illegal? :ph34r:

As for the pre-emptive strike, it was based on (we now know faulty) military intelligence that France/Russia, etc. believed in.

Hinzman's claim that the war was illegal and he couldn't kill a man evoke no sympathy from me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Ah,

Human rights violations happened in World War II. Does that make that war illegal? :ph34r:

As for the pre-emptive strike, it was based on (we now know faulty) military intelligence that France/Russia, etc. believed in.

Hinzman's claim that the war was illegal and he couldn't kill a man evoke no sympathy from me...

WWII was a defensive war on our part. We didn't start it. Furthermore, haven't we progressed since then as far as international law?

As for the Iraq war being based on military intelligence that France/Russia etc. believed in, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. France didn't go to war over it, and as I recall, Russia wasn't demanding that the weapons inspectors be kicked out before they finish their job so we could rush to war. But I'm curious, if China started a war against North America based on intelligence that China, North Korea, etc, believed in, would that make the war justified? What if China had been the one to wage war against Iraq, would you support that?

I'd like to see the quote where Hinzman said he couldn't kill a man. As I've already said, he did serve in Afghanistan. That seems to be continually ignored. I don't see how anyone who did serve in a war could say they couldn't kill a man. That was a very real possibility in Afghanistan, if not a reality.

One final thought. Sometimes a person isn't aware of the realities of war until they actually serve. I would say it's possible to change one's views about war once they have seen what it does to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its really quite simple. Hinzman signed on to serve in the military of a nation that is a signatory to several internation conventions. Ergo, his commitment to that miltary is predicated on the belief that that miltary will adhere to the commitments made by that nation. If in fact that military does not adhere to the commitments understood to be in effect at the time of his enlisting, it is the military, and not Hinzman, that has failed to meet its commitments. Once the US military ceased meeting its commitments from international agreements, all agreements that individuals made with the military predicated on those commitments ought to be null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't claim to be a conscientious objector. He claims to be against the Iraq war because it's illegal and violates human rights.

All war ultimately violates human rights, and he is hardly in a position to say whether the war is "illegal", no matter how you interpret that word. He volunteered to join the Army, so he goes where the Army sends him. There are no requirements on American soldiers to violate human rights or American laws. In fact, if given an illegal order - such as to shoot an unarmed man - he has the responsibilty to disobey it. That would be the point he might deserve some sympathy.

I think he was simply frightened. Afghanistan was a cakewalk compared to Iraq, and he was afraid of being killed, pure and simple.

He deserves to go to jail, as well as a DD afterwards. He most certainly should not stay here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, if given an illegal order - such as to shoot an unarmed man - he has the responsibilty to disobey it. That would be the point he might deserve some sympathy.

So what you're saying is that if he was ordered to deploy for an illegal war, it would be his responsibility to disobey?

What he is arguing is if his general told him to rape and murder a 7 year old girl, it would be his responsibility to ignore the order.

He is in no position--what with no law or even a Bachelor's degree (???)--to determine whether or not the war was legal, nor is that even (as the government argued) relevant to this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he is arguing is if his general told him to rape and murder a 7 year old girl, it would be his responsibility to ignore the order.

He is in no position--what with no law or even a Bachelor's degree (???)--to determine whether or not the war was legal, nor is that even (as the government argued) relevant to this case.

How is the relevance any different in those two cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he is arguing is if his general told him to rape and murder a 7 year old girl, it would be his responsibility to ignore the order.

He is in no position--what with no law or even a Bachelor's degree (???)--to determine whether or not the war was legal, nor is that even (as the government argued) relevant to this case.

How is the relevance any different in those two cases?

One involves a real incidence which may or may not take place on the battlefield. The other involves a theoretical question of legality which will vary depending on your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...