Canada support of deserters

[ACPlayer]

Canda refuge for US soldiers (http://www.notinourname.net/troops/canada-refuge-7feb04.htm)

I dont think Canada should be giving refuge to American soldiers who are running from their duty. As opposed to Vietnam, where they were mostly running from the draft, these soldiers are part of a volunteer army.

I sympathize with their convictions and oppositions, but having volunteered for the Military, they should put up with the consequences of their actions.

Canada should not meddle.

[Gamblor]

Who's meddling?

Some people knock on the door, we answer.

That's what you do when you're a humanitarian powerhouse.

Why should we care if they're cowards?

[ThaSaltCracka]

you are opening your doors to criminals, so if your fine with that then go ahead. Canada all ready gives everyone a slap on the wrist, why not these stupid cowards.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what you do when you're a humanitarian powerhouse.

[/ QUOTE ] Canada is indeed the last bastion of good in the world, oh Canada, please show the rest of the world how we should treat these people.

Those damn canucks are probably at the border with a joint and a beer /images/graemlins/grin.gif greating these "soldiers"...... damn now that I think about it, sign me up!!!

[Gamblor]

I don't believe you didn't catch the sarcasm in my post.

I simply don't believe it.

[Cyrus]

"I dont think Canada should be giving refuge to American soldiers who are running from their duty. As opposed to Vietnam, where they were mostly running from the draft, these soldiers are part of a volunteer army."

(What's this, ACPlayer arguing that deserters from Iraq should be punished and Gamblor arguing that they should not be? Is this the Hunter S. Thompson thread?)

Young men volunteer to serve, I would speculate, mostly for economic reasons. The precentage of those volunteering out of sheer patriotic fervor should be much smaller. The volunteers, thus, look forward to the standard boredom and the relative economic security of civil service, albeit a service colored with some physical work, an rigid command structure, the chance to be buddies with other lads, and such like. They do not volunteer to die in Iraq! That's something they hadn't planned on!

So deserters from the U.S. Army are finding out the hard way the "risks of ruin" awaiting them. Although I personally support a fully volunteering army, for every country, I can understand what's going on here.

[ACPlayer]

When you gamble you face risk of ruin. When you gamble sometimes you are ruined.

[Gamblor]

What's this, ACPlayer arguing that deserters from Iraq should be punished and Gamblor arguing that they should not be? Is this the Hunter S. Thompson thread?

Deserters in a volunteer army, regardless of motivation for registration, should be punished by the nation of the army they joined.

While America would be right to punish deserters, Canada has no responsibility in the way of enforcing that punishment, not that I'd want a former deserter in my army.

A soldier must do two things:

1) Use his moral compass to determine how and if a specific order should be followed.

2) Accept that the orders of superiors are made to minimize danger to the citizens of his country and further the country's best interests.

Therefore: If he's shipped off to Iraq, he has to go. But if he doesn't want to fire his gun in carrying out orders, he doesn't have to.

Incidentally, knowing the Bushes' previous history in Iraq as well as Dub's connections, why did you vote him into office (even if it was coin-flip)?

[ThaSaltCracka]

ummm.....

Okay one thing is cleat cut here. You volunter to join the army, the army's main job is fight for the country, ergo if you don't want to fight in a war then the army is probably nopt where you want to go. I find it completely absurd that someone joins the army and then is shocked that they have to go fight in a war. Well no [censored] sherlock, thats what the [censored] army does.

Canada should mind their own business and send these deserters home. I saw on the news last week of a soldier who came back from Iraq for a two week vacation and decided to go AWOL because he didn't want to go back for moral reasons. Apparently he had been working at another prison over there ane he witnissed abuse. This soldier was convicted in a court martial and will be in prison for a year. Atleast this guy had a damn backbone. You might agree or disagree with his point of view, but the way he handled himself is far more respectable then these pussies that go up to Canada.

BTW, Gamblor I am not particularly responding to you here.

[Gamblor]

but the way he handled himself is far more respectable then these pussies that go up to Canada.

Agreed. You either stand up or you go back (assuming claiming "moral" opposition isn't a way to hide "I'm a pussy and I want to stay home").

Canada should mind their own business and send these deserters home.

I think it's quite the opposite. A female Afghani refugee arrives in Canada and the government should return her to the Taliban so they can jail her for popping a Britney Spears CD into her car? After all, that crime is just as serious there as draft dodging is here.

It's not like the deserter murdered anyone, he refused to serve (horseshit, but still not murder).

The point is, Canada would be getting involved if it DID return the soldier. By accepting the refusenik regardless of his political view on the war, Canada ignores the political aspect of the drama and does not kowtow to American interests.

[Ray Zee]

when yo sign up as a mercenary you agree to do the job asked. so when you decide not to perform you have basically two choices. take the court martial and maybe jail, or run to a country that will give you refuge. personal choice to make.
canada gives refuge to those in theses situations and thats their choice. i applaude them for it.
the u.s. has given refuge to millions of people that have deserted their own countries because of their personal decisions not to follow the govts. orders. right or wrong.

overall it would be best if no country accepted others running away from problems at home. things get changed through the personal suffering of those that changed bad systems.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, Canada would be getting involved if it DID return the soldier. By accepting the refusenik regardless of his political view on the war, Canada ignores the political aspect of the drama and does not kowtow to American interests.

[/ QUOTE ]
No if they grant him amnesty(which is what he wants) then they are getting involved, and to think that them giving him amnesty is not politcal motivated would be very naive of you.

We are not talking about someone FORCED by the government to do something. So in that regards he is not a politcal refuge, he made a choice to join an organization whose main purpose is warfare. Let me repeat that he JOINED the army under he own free will. He is breaking the law. Would the U.S. return an accused murderer to Canada? Of course.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
when yo sign up as a mercenary you agree to do the job asked.

[/ QUOTE ] a personal choice, not one forced upon you.
[ QUOTE ]
so when you decide not to perform you have basically two choices. take the court martial and maybe jail, or run to a country that will give you refuge. personal choice to make.

[/ QUOTE ] you know what your signing up for, if you have a problem with that job, then don't sign up for it.

[ QUOTE ]
canada gives refuge to those in theses situations and thats their choice. i applaude them for it.


[/ QUOTE ]
what Canada is doing here is far more different than :

[ QUOTE ]
the u.s. has given refuge to millions of people that have deserted their own countries because of their personal decisions not to follow the govts. orders. right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Highlight this: because of their personal decisions not to follow the govts. orders. right or wrong.
think about that..... the U.S. army is not forced upon someone. It is not mandatory service as it is in some countries.

[ QUOTE ]
overall it would be best if no country accepted others running away from problems at home. things get changed through the personal suffering of those that changed bad systems.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely, excellent point.

[Gamblor]

Do Canada and the US have an extradition treaty for deserters? If Canada abides by the treaty, then you are wrong.

If Canada does not abide by the treaty, then you are 100% correct.

There could be no reason to break the treaty, whatever it says, unless humanitarian or political concerns were involved.

And somehow I don't think they're sending these guys to Abu Ghirab.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
They do not volunteer to die in Iraq! That's something they hadn't planned on!


[/ QUOTE ]

That is some funny stuff there Cyrus. Keep it up and you may just give Dennis Miller a run for his money.

Jimbo

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
A soldier must do two things:

1) Use his moral compass to determine how and if a specific order should be followed.

2) Accept that the orders of superiors are made to minimize danger to the citizens of his country and further the country's best interests. Therefore: If he's shipped off to Iraq, he has to go. But if he doesn't want to fire his gun in carrying out orders, he doesn't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure this?

A soldier shouldn't carry out immoral orders, such as orders to machine gun a village of women and children. A soldier does have to go fight in any war to which he is sent.

Anyone who volunteers for the military knows that there is a risk of being sent to fight in a war--and if they are so sent, they might have to use their gun to fight enemy soldiers. How do you figure "if he doesn't want to fire his gun in carrying out orders, he doesn't have to"???

Does an IDF soldier sent to fight terrorists have the option "if he doesn't want to fire his gun in carrying out orders, he doesn't have to"?

[Gamblor]

Does an IDF soldier sent to fight terrorists have the option "if he doesn't want to fire his gun in carrying out orders, he doesn't have to"?

There's a concept known as "Degel Shachor", meaning, "black flag", meaning a soldier believes a specific order is immoral.

There is a hierarchy of actions a soldier must take - if an immoral order endangers human life, he is required to refuse to follow the order.

If its immoral but no human life is endangered, he must follow the order and then report it to the commander's superior.

Simple as that.

[ACPlayer]

Is a refusenik, given a pat on the back for refusing immoral orders or an immoral war and promoted to the next rank or is he/she put in jail?

[Cyrus]

"That is some funny stuff there Cyrus. Keep it up."

You think it's funny? By my count, there are at least a dozen men and women in uniform that we know of who've already declared that hell, no, they don't gonna die for no goddamn Eye-rak.

Stuff that down your chimney.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

A number of Germans soldiers had deserted from the Nazi ranks, not out of cowardice but for reasons of moral objection. (Some Germans had even engaged in acts of sabotage against their country, which was at war (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/White%20Rose) at the time. Moreover, it was a "total war".) This happened too with Soviet soldiers, as well as civilians. We can recall numerous examples in recent history where the "enemy" has chosen not to fight and Americans have lauded that choice.

What happens then when an American objects to his country's war? (And this be an American mind you, a citizen of the supposedly most liberal democracy ever!)

Why do Americans reserve for foreigners their admiration (when those foreigners are consciencious objectors) and have only contempt for their fellow Americans, whether in or out of uniform, when they object to an American war?

The reason most "super patriots" offer is that America is always right and, therefore, one should automatically abide by whatever the leadership demands. This, however, is a very problematic reasoning. It assumes that the leadership is always enlightened and "in the know", a notion rendered void by partisan politics. More importanty, the country-always-right argument has been used by all regimes in History!

A more reasonable explanation is that Americans are less democratic and more nationalistic than they realize.

[Gamblor]

Is a refusenik, given a pat on the back for refusing immoral orders or an immoral war and promoted to the next rank or is he/she put in jail?

Given a pat on the back. Assuming the orders are actually immoral, and not simply misunderstood by a planet so drowned in Arab misinformation.

[Gamblor]

Bush has never suggested, in writing or in the media, the genocide of Arabs or Muslims, as Hitler did with Jews. Furthermore, the Arabs Bush is specifically targeting are a belligerent, barbaric foe (witness Nick Berg), hardly representative of the meek Jews who walked into their own slaughter with hardly a peep.

Since this is the fundamental complaint the Nazi refuseniks had with their orders, your comparison is invalid.

[Cyrus]

"Bush has never suggested, in writing or in the media, the genocide of Arabs or Muslims, as Hitler did with Jews.
Since this is the fundamental complaint the Nazi refuseniks had with their orders, your comparison is invalid."

No, you are making two mistakes with that.

One, your objection to my specific Nazi example : the German people at the time of WWII had little knowledge of the extent of the annihilation of Jews, Slavs and other "undesirables". (A lot of death camps were in Poland.) Germans and Allies found out the extent of atrocities after the war. Therefore, those Germans who resisted the Nazi regime (they were not that many, by the way) were fighting the barbarian, lawless and dictatorial nature of National Socialism. Some were even ultra-patriots, like von Stauffenberg, who betrayed their oath to the Fuhrer and attempted to kill him in order "to save the Fatherland". No friends of the Jews they!

And, two, you are focusing too much on the Nazi example! I also gave the example of Soviets who resisted their country's "war" against the West, ('twas a "cold" one, admittedly). My examples were only used to bring the point home.

So, the question is still waiting for an answer. Do only Americans have a right to say "My Country, Right or Wrong", or do objective moral imperatives exist that should be universally respected?

[ACPlayer]

I applaud any soldier who objects to the war in Iraq and to going to that war. Finally he has come to his senses and realized that the Military is nothing but a killing machine, often used for purposes that have little morality.

First, if you are truly objecting out of conscience, stand up and be counted and argue the same. Along with free choice comes responsibility.

Second, having an escape valve (by having Canada grant them refuge) for those misguided people who think that joining the military is about pension and security may continue to encourage the same.

[ACPlayer]

Thanks for a non-statement. You make a firm statement and immediately put a caveat that is totally vague and can be interpreted any which way. You are learning too much from MMMMMM, try following Cyrus for real arguements.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
ACPlayer: You are learning too much from MMMMMM, try following Cyrus for real arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's it! just follow Cyrus for real arguments, and sure you'll never be disappointed!


"# M= Man looking for an argument
# R= Receptionist
# Q= Abuser
# A= Arguer
# C= Complainer
# H= Head Hitter


M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.

Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!
(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right. (pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up. (Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)
"

http://www.duke.edu/~pms5/humor/argument.html

[Gamblor]

I don't believe Israel declared any sort of war on the arabs.

Nowadays, Israeli soldiers have been reduced by the terrorist (who hide among civilians) into heavily armed police officers.

[ACPlayer]

I get truly orgasmic when you are succinct!

Ooooh, dont stop.

[Gamblor]

Do only Americans have a right to say "My Country, Right or Wrong", or do objective moral imperatives exist that should be universally respected?

Obviously objective moral imperatives exist - moral relativism is undoubtedly a scary phenomenon.

However, I think there are far fewer imperatives that ought to govern human behaviour than you do.

For example, Americans, just as Israelis and Saudis, have a right to say "My Country, Right or... Right." But wanton destruction or imposition on others for self-interest (as opposed to self-defence) is an obvious no-no.

The question is, how do you see the problem to which you are applying such imperatives: as self-interest or self-defence?

[ACPlayer]

You are right. All the Zionists did was

a) move a whole bunch of foreigners into the land from all over the world, these people had no legitimate claim to the land.
b) moved a whole bunch of people who had been living there for hundreds of years and made them and their future generations into either refugees or inhabitants of ghettos.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
I ...but having volunteered for the Military, they should put up with the consequences of their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The U.S. Army has issued an order preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires, officials said on Wednesday."

I guess both sides are guilty of breach of contract.