Our Neighbors To The North

[BigBank_Hank]

Well its seems as thought there are 2 Privates in our great military who after enlisting in the military decided they weren't going to do their duty as soldiers. So what they did is ran to Canada where they are being embraced. So far the Canadian government has yet to send them packing and is letting them stay.

Personally I think the cowards should be sent home and punished for their crime. These men weren't drafted into service they enlisted. Now after earning money towards their college education when it came time to earn their pay they hauled ass.

[MagicNakor]

From a post I made a bit ago:

Falling under the Military Service section of the Refugee Convention:




The claimant's problems may be connected with a disinclination to serve in the military. Either the claimant entered the military and left it without authorization (i.e., the claimant deserted); or the claimant was ordered to report for service, but refused to report or refused to be inducted; or the claimant has not yet received a call-up, but anticipates that the order will be forthcoming and does not wish to comply.

The courts have established some very basic points of departure for the analysis of such claims.Thus, conscientious objectors and army deserters are not automatically included in the Convention refugee definition, nor is a person precluded from being a Convention refugee because the person is a conscientious objector or deserter. It is not persecution for a country to have compulsory military service. An aversion to military service or a fear of combat is not in itself sufficient to justify a fear of persecution...

Zolfagharkhani indicates that it is not the claimant's motivation for refusing to serve which is relevant, but rather the intent or principal effect of the conscription law. In accordance with this guideline, one must ask whether the reaction of the authorities to the claimant's refusal to serve would be a function of some Convention attribute which the claimant has, or would be perceived by the authorities as having (a political opinion often being the likeliest possibility). Even where the claimant has no strong convictions which should be permitted to interfere with the claimant's serving, his refusal might be regarded by the authorities as an indication of an opinion which is frowned upon by them.

However, it would seem that the motivation of the claimant has not been completely discarded as a factor in claims concerning military service, although the cases do not make clear to which element or elements (nexus, serious harm) it may relate, and exactly how it should be worked into the consideration of a particular element. In Zolfagharkhani itself, the Court of Appeal focused on the claimant's reason of conscience for not wishing to serve, and laid considerable emphasis on the fact that the particular combat technique to which the claimant objected was abhorred by the international community; but the Court did not provide much explanation as to how such attending to the claimant's reason of conscience was to be reconciled with the view that the claimant's motivation is not relevant. Furthermore, in subsequent decisions, the Trial Division has repeatedly considered the claimant's conscience, as well as the attitude of the international community to operations criticized by the claimant...

...there is some debate - and some confusion - about the meaning of the term "conscientious objector." In Popov, the Trial Division indicated that, "in the usual sense", this term applied to a person who "was a pacifist or was against war and all militarism on the grounds of principle, either religious or philosophical." It may be correct to reserve this particular term for persons who are opposed to all militarism; but at the same time, it must be appreciated that what is important for the determination of a claim is not whether this particular label fits.

The important question is whether a claimant's reason of conscience will be sufficiently significant only if it entails an opposition to all militarism (or is otherwise broad in scope). In Zolfagharkhani, the Court of Appeal indicated that a claimant's objection may be entitled to respect even if it is more specific: where the claimant did not object to military service in general or to the particular conflict, but was opposed to the use of a particular category of weapon (namely, chemical weapons), the Court found his objection to be reasonable and valid. Similarly, the Trial Division has held that a claimant may object to serving in a particular conflict, rather than objecting to military service altogether, and may still be a Convention refugee.

This is not to say that any narrow or limited objection of conscience will suffice.The objection may be regarded as sufficiently serious if the military actions objected to are judged by the international community to be contrary to basic rules of human conduct. However, a military's operations are not to be characterized as contravening international standards if there are only isolated violations of those standards.Instead, there must be offending military activity by the military forces which is condoned in a general way by the state.

The serious harm that is a requisite for persecution may be found in the forcing of the claimant to perform military service; where reasons of conscience are involved, there is also a violation of the claimant's freedom of conscience; where military actions violate international standards, the claimant might be forced into association with the wrongdoing. One must also bear in mind that some conscription activities may be extra-legal, and may therefore lack any basis for claiming to constitute legitimate exercises of state authority.An organization may have de facto authority and an ability to coerce persons into performing military service, yet not be a legitimate government, and have no right to conscript.

If a call-up for military service would not necessarily result in the claimant's being compelled to perform military service, the injury to the claimant's interests is less, and the legitimacy of the demands placed on the claimant by the state looms large. Therefore, where objections of conscience may enable the claimant to obtain an exemption from service, or assignment to alternative service (i.e., non-military service, or non-combat service, or service outside a particular theatre of operations), the conscription law may not be inherently persecutory.

Nor is there persecution if the penalties for refusing to serve are not harsh,  except perhaps where the refusal to serve occurs in the context of a military operation condemned as contrary to basic rules of human conduct. The Refugee Protection Division must consider the actual practice in the treatment of deserters, and not just the penalty prescribed by law.

Somewhat akin to the idea that the claimant would not be persecuted if he would not be forced into military activity is the notion that the Refugee Protection Division should not endorse an objection to compulsory military service in the country of reference if the claimant chose to immigrate to that country, knowing that compulsory service existed there...



There are three cases referrenced in some 20-odd footnotes to provide reference examples, but they aren't available online.

:ninja:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@1 May 2004 - 02:04
Well its seems as thought there are 2 Privates in our great military who after enlisting in the military decided they weren't going to do their duty as soldiers. So what they did is ran to Canada where they are being embraced. So far the Canadian government has yet to send them packing and is letting them stay.

Personally I think the cowards should be sent home and punished for their crime. These men weren't drafted into service they enlisted. Now after earning money towards their college education when it came time to earn their pay they hauled ass.
Well its seems as thought there is one officer in our great military who after enlisting in the military decided they weren't going to do their duty as an airman. So what they did is just not turn up where it was ignored. So far the Texan government has yet to send him packing and is letting him stay.

Personally I think the coward should be punished for his crime. This man wasn't drafted into service he enlisted. Now after avoiding the Draft for Vietnam when it came time to earn his pay he hauled ass.




The same thing from a few years ago...... ;)

Bit of Hypocracy does you good :P

[BigBank_Hank]

Well if the President never showed up for a year like you are questioning then how is it possible that he earned the required number of points that are awarded for showing up for duty? The national guard has a point system that gives points for doing service required.

The National Guard is not the Army. It doesn't require you to be there 24/7 like the other branches of the military. If you are enlisted in the National Guard you are required to go a weekend a month.

The President was honorably discharged 1973 and the military would give someone a honorable discharge to a deserter.

[james_bond_rulez]

what's to beat a disgruntled Lieut. from hovering a Harrier at White House threatening to blast the shiyte out of George Bush if he doesn't call off the attacks in Iraq?


































oh I know...the pilot would prob crash if he heard the President spell the word "subliminal".

ROFLMAO :lol:

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@1 May 2004 - 17:28
Well if the President never showed up for a year like you are questioning then how is it possible that he earned the required number of points that are awarded for showing up for duty? The national guard has a point system that gives points for doing service required.

The National Guard is not the Army. It doesn't require you to be there 24/7 like the other branches of the military. If you are enlisted in the National Guard you are required to go a weekend a month.

The President was honorably discharged 1973 and the military would give someone a honorable discharge to a deserter.
I have never quite understood how, given his age, he avoided the draft. Many young Americans went to Canada to avoid being sent to Vietnam, but GW seemed to do it on his own terms, perhaps Asian food disagrees with him.

However, like many who avoid such things, he seems to have no qualms about commiting the lives of others.

I know nothing of the two that have decided to live in Canada, rather than go on a a camping holiday to Iraq. Although it would be an all expenses paid trip perhaps middle eastern food does not agree with them. :rolleyes:

[MagicNakor]

They're claiming to be conscientious objectors.

There are quite a few more northern towns primarily filled with draft-dodgers. They're interesting places to be. ;)

:ninja:

[Tikibonbon]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 May 2004 - 13:01
So far the Texan government has yet to send him packing and is letting him stay.

Texas doesn't have extradiction powers country to country as we are a state and not a country, we can only extradite state to state.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Biggles@3 May 2004 - 05:57
I know nothing of the two that have decided to live in Canada, rather than go on a a camping holiday to Iraq.
The two Privates who are still in Canada were supposed to report for duty but decided against it. The part the aggravates me the most is they go to Canada and get a publicist because they are in a high demand to do television appearances. The fact that they are being treated as heroes for being cowards drives me nuts. The real heroes are in Iraq fighting and dieing everyday for their country.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 10:16
The fact that they are being treated as heroes for being cowards drives me nuts. .
You know, it is possible to be a consciencious objector without being a coward too....

[BigBank_Hank]

If they were drafted into service it would have been different. They enlisted into the military.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 08:16
The real heroes are in Iraq fighting and dieing everyday for their country.
dieing for whos' country? Ours? i thought you said we don't go to war to profit.

when someone enlists it is with a sense of patriotism to "protect ones country"...not to go around invading other countries for oil.
I kind of agree with your point hank but i understand personal morals. One doesn't lose ones moral upbringing because one enlists.

[Rat Faced]

Sometimes, it takes more guts not to fight..

Although dangerous and nasty in Iraq, the chances are they wold have come through their "tour" unscathed, and im sure they knew this.

Instead they have abandoned a country that they loved enough that they would have fought to defend, and can now never go back.

They have lost everything they had, to make their point.




Of course, this may not have been the case, and they enlisted only to get a decent education..... maybe someone should try asking them why, instead of just condemning them without a trial?

[BigBank_Hank]

dieing for whos' country? Ours? i thought you said we don't go to war to profit.


I have never said that.


when someone enlists it is with a sense of patriotism to "protect ones country"...not to go around invading other countries for oil.

You did.

@RF: The Canadian government won't return them to the US so we can't question them.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 17:21

@RF: The Canadian government won't return them to the US so we can't question them.
Nothing at all stopping anyone questioning them.

They cant be arrested and made to answer, they can still answer questions if they want to.

If its for political reasons, then im sure they'd be more than happy to answer the questions... of course Fox News may not be willing to broadcast what they say, but im sure that some US stations would.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 09:21

dieing for whos' country? Ours? i thought you said we don't go to war to profit.


I have never said that.


quote hank (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=109580&hl=&view=findpost&p=980755)

[BigBank_Hank]

vidcc did you read my post? Where in it did I saw we invaded Iraq for the oil fields?

I was talking about when Saddam invaded Kuwait for that exact reasons.

Quoting Myself:

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 09:53
vidcc did you read my post? Where in it did I saw we invaded Iraq for the oil fields?

I was talking about when Saddam invaded Kuwait for that exact reasons.

Quoting Myself:

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.
yes i did read it... and you said
We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches

we are not talking now about the gulf war, we are talking about iraq.

in the original thread i have quoted this from i asked you just who is prospering from our "liberation" of iraq.... it's not the iraqis as nearly all the contracts have gone to american companies ( who has the oil contract? ) American business is doing very well in iraq thank you very much.
The whole point was that we do only "liberate" countries we can prosper from.

edit : now i appreciate your viewpoint that you don't believe oil had anything to do with why we went in, i accept your view, but you are in a worldwide minority in that belief.

[Rat Faced]

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.


You really should read up on how Hawaii went from an Independant Kingdom into a Republic and then into a Territory..... prior to Statehood.


Hawaii is unique in one respect.

It's King Kamehameha III asked to be part of the British Empire as a protectorate in the 1840's, something we turned down, to protect it from the US which had attempted to annex it (1st time)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 May 2004 - 19:10

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.


You really should read up on how Hawaii went from an Independant Kingdom into a Territory..... prior to Statehood.


Hawaii is unique in one respect.

It's King asked to be part of the British Empire as a protectorate, something we turned down, to protect it from the US.
I suspect some Native Americans may quibble over the point also. There are very few Nations that have not turned to the sword in order to further financial interests.

The ME is one of the most economically important areas in the world. Political problems in that region affect every major economy in the world.

Events in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Burma, N. Korea, China and currently Sudan demonstrate the indifference with which we hold economically irrelevant regions. This is not to say that Saddam's removal is a bad thing, but I feel it is more of a happy side effect of geo-poltical strategy than any desire to do something for the Iraqi people - or am I just cynical?


Edit: I am referring to events in China before it suddenly leapt umpteen places to become second largest economy in the world.

[Snee]

Originally posted by vidcc+3 May 2004 - 19:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 3 May 2004 - 19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 09:53
vidcc did you read my post? Where in it did I saw we invaded Iraq for the oil fields?

I was talking about when Saddam invaded Kuwait for that exact reasons.

Quoting Myself:

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.
yes i did read it... and you said
We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches

we are not talking now about the gulf war, we are talking about iraq.

in the original thread i have quoted this from i asked you just who is prospering from our "liberation" of iraq.... it&#39;s not the iraqis as nearly all the contracts have gone to american companies ( who has the oil contract? ) American business is doing very well in iraq thank you very much.
The whole point was that we do only "liberate" countries we can prosper from.

edit : now i appreciate your viewpoint that you don&#39;t believe oil had anything to do with why we went in, i accept your view, but you are in a worldwide minority in that belief. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t believe so much in the oil bit either.

And furthermore, I kinda&#39; feel like hank here, they did sign up, they weren&#39;t forced to join the military, so they should have done what they were meant to do, and then complained about it.


As for they rest, it kinda&#39; seems to me as if Bush was pretty keen to declare war on people because his ratings were dropping.

I figure it was political, rather than monetary profit, that this war was about. At least from the POV of the administration. I ain&#39;t saying the general outcome o&#39; the war seems that bad to me either, it&#39;s still the motivation I wonder about.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@3 May 2004 - 13:07
but you are in a worldwide minority in that belief.
That doesn&#39;t bother me one bit. That just means that I&#39;ll have to work harder to prove you wrong :P

[vidcc]

Snny...i did point out to hank that he was in a worldwide minority in that belief..i didn&#39;t say he was alone and i understood his viewpoint based on this belief :)

i have to agree that political motivation point to a degree, everytime bush got into trouble on the homefront he made some speech about fighting terror, however i believe that he might have wanted to do this before he came to office and his connections to the fuel industries are a bit too close to home to be coincidence.

And this is where the whole point of the thread comes in, yes these 2 men did sign up for military service, but they did so (possibly) in the belief that any fighting would be to protect "their country".....and just maybe they feel that this particular war doesn&#39;t fit that criterior as they have a same viewpoint as the majority of the world does that we are there for dubious reasons.

One point slightly off topic but in the same ball park.....many join the military because it&#39;s a way of getting benefits such as the vetrans medical plan. It&#39;s a sad case that many poorer people see this as the only way to cover themsleves in our increasing costly country. These 2 joined to get an education ( i&#39;m not sure how this works)....i don&#39;t know their financial standing but doesn&#39;t it worry you that joining up is the only way some people can do this?

[Snee]

Originally posted by vidcc@3 May 2004 - 21:05
... i have to agree that political motivation point to a degree, everytime bush got into trouble on the homefront he made some speech about fighting terror, however i believe that he might have wanted to do this before he came to office and his connections to the fuel industries are a bit too close to home to be coincidence.

And this is where the whole point of the thread comes in, yes these 2 men did sign up for military service, but they did so (possibly) in the belief that any fighting would be to protect "their country".....and just maybe they feel that this particular war doesn&#39;t fit that criterior as they have a same viewpoint as the majority of the world does that we are there for dubious reasons.

One point slightly off topic but in the same ball park.....many join the military because it&#39;s a way of getting benefits such as the vetrans medical plan. It&#39;s a sad case that many poorer people see this as the only way to cover themsleves in our increasing costly country. These 2 joined to get an education ( i&#39;m not sure how this works)....i don&#39;t know their financial standing but doesn&#39;t it worry you that joining up is the only way some people can do this?
Lessee&#39; again, dunno &#39;bout the oil bit.

Granted it might have been one of the benefits considered before going to war. But I think the trigger and the main reason was the need to keep bush floatin&#39;.

As for the desertion, it might have been, as you say, because they doubted the motives to going to war. But did they not have a second obligation? An obligation towards everyone else who also enlisted. Granted, had they been asked to build and run concentration-camps or somesuch, i could understand desertion. But in this case things were not very clear, therefore they should have done it for their fellow soldiers if nothing else.

This way someone else might have died in their stead.

I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s wrong to doubt the administration, but in the case of this desertion, maybe duty should have been attended to first.

As for the last issue, I do not want to say more than that it is very sad if this is, indeed the only way for some people to get said benefits. More than that I leave to J2K4 or someone else, who is more informed on the matter.

[BigBank_Hank]

i have to agree that political motivation point to a degree, everytime bush got into trouble on the homefront he made some speech about fighting terror, however i believe that he might have wanted to do this before he came to office and his connections to the fuel industries are a bit too close to home to be coincidence.

In 1998 President Clinton said that Saddam was a menace and would one day need to be removed from power. In that same year John Kerry hand wrote a memo to President Clinton that if Saddam were to continue to break UN resolutions that he would need to be dealt with and that the use of military force would be appropriate. Saddam did continue to break resolutions (17 times) and the UN still did nothing. Now Kerry is saying that he only meant that memo to be a threat and he really did want to use military force.


And this is where the whole point of the thread comes in, yes these 2 men did sign up for military service, but they did so (possibly) in the belief that any fighting would be to protect "their country".....and just maybe they feel that this particular war doesn&#39;t fit that criterior as they have a same viewpoint as the majority of the world does that we are there for dubious reasons.

Signing up for the military is a job, and in every job sometimes you have to do things that you don&#39;t like to do. The circumstances may be different but its still their job, and that&#39;s what they signed up for. What the hell did they think they signed up for when they joined the military just to play pretend.

[Rat Faced]

were to continue to break UN resolutions that he would need to be dealt with and that the use of military force would be appropriate. ***** did continue to break resolutions (17 times) and the UN still did nothing.

Do you agree with the above statement?

Notwithstanding I can think of a number of countries it applies to...


What 17 UN resolutions have they broke?

Its my understanding that they dragged their feet and raised cain about them (and who wouldnt? Im sure your country and mine both would if forced to do everything they did), but I cant, offhand, think of one UN resolution they did not either comply with, or were in the process of complying with, when the Coalition invaded.. Unlike the another country that immediatly springs to mind, and to which the USA gives Billions in Military Aid. Slightly Hypocritical that...

Maybe you can enlighten me which UN resolutions they refused to comply with?

[Mathea]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 20:38
Signing up for the military is a job, and in every job sometimes you have to do things that you don&#39;t like to do. The circumstances may be different but its still their job, and that&#39;s what they signed up for. What the hell did they think they signed up for when they joined the military just to play pretend.
So if enlisting in the military is a job, then shouldn&#39;t they have the right to quit if they feel that strongly? If you&#39;re working and given something to do that you think is wrong, would you put your beliefs and morals on the back burner all because your employer tells you you have to do something?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Mathea+3 May 2004 - 16:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mathea @ 3 May 2004 - 16:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 20:38
Signing up for the military is a job, and in every job sometimes you have to do things that you don&#39;t like to do. The circumstances may be different but its still their job, and that&#39;s what they signed up for. What the hell did they think they signed up for when they joined the military just to play pretend.
So if enlisting in the military is a job, then shouldn&#39;t they have the right to quit if they feel that strongly? If you&#39;re working and given something to do that you think is wrong, would you put your beliefs and morals on the back burner all because your employer tells you you have to do something? [/b][/quote]
Quitting and is one thing but these clowns left the country. If they apposed the war and felt it was against their beliefs why didn&#39;t they stay and stand up for what they believe in?

@RF: I&#39;ll be busy the rest of the afternoon so I&#39;ll do some research and find you some links when I get a minute.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 09:53
Quoting Myself:

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.
"never" is a mighty strong word, and a word that people should be careful with. as Biggles pointed out, the official policy of the U.S. was to treat Native American tribes as foreign nations. the U.S. made treaties with them (just as they would with any other foreign countries), promptly broke the treaties, went to war against the tribes, and swiped their land.

and a pretty huge chunk of the southwest U.S., we basically stole from Mexico. including some land that turned out to have a whole lot of oil. ;)

but all that&#39;s pretty far in the past. at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, i&#39;d suggest perusing CIA documents/correspondence that&#39;s been made available to the public, for a great deal of insight into the U.S. government&#39;s motivations behind its entanglements in places like southeast asia, the middle east, south america, and the caribbean. it&#39;d prolly be easier to read a book or essays about the CIA and OSS (forerunner to the CIA) though, for a bit of organization and interpretation though. the stuff they intended to never be read by regular folk paints a completely different & greedier picture from what the gov&#39;t publicly claimed at the time (i.e. bringing freedom, democracy, etc to the world). not trying to beat you over the head with it or anything: i genuinely think it might be the kind of stuff you&#39;d be interested to find out about.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 14:38


In 1998 President Clinton said that Saddam was a menace and would one day need to be removed from power. In that same year John Kerry hand wrote a memo to President Clinton that if Saddam were to continue to break UN resolutions that he would need to be dealt with and that the use of military force would be appropriate. Saddam did continue to break resolutions (17 times) and the UN still did nothing. Now Kerry is saying that he only meant that memo to be a threat and he really did want to use military force.


And this is apropos of what?

Neither Clinton nor Kerry actually did unilaterally attack Iraq and then proceed to prosecute the war so poorly that no endgame is in sight, did they?

Furthermore, it seems a bit ( more than a bit, really) disingenuous to denegrate both Clinton and Kerry as leaders and then turn around and use them as support for what Bush has done.

[BigBank_Hank]

We&#39;re going way of topic again and its my fault again, so this will be my last post (in this thread) defending the war against Iraq.

Ok RF this one&#39;s for you:link (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/1997/9731347e.htm)
There are more articles but it would take weeks to read all that.

@ Clocker: What everyone likes to say is that it was all President Bush&#39;s idea to invade Iraq, and what I was pointing out that it has been said for a long time that he needed to be ousted from power.

Of course Clinton would never invade Iraq nor would Kerry because that takes guts and neither of them have that. Kerry even said at a campaign speech in January or February of last year that "Saddam Hussein has WMD&#39;s and is threat to the United States and if you don&#39;t believe that then you shouldn&#39;t vote for me" now of course he&#39;s changes his position 100 times since then, but it just proves my point that this wasn&#39;t all Bush&#39;s idea.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 May 2004 - 20:24
nor would Kerry because that takes guts and neither of them have that.
you gotta be kidding. the guy who came back from Vietnam with a Silver Star is the gutless one, and the one who can&#39;t even account for his National Guard attendance is the one with guts? methinks you&#39;ve got this "guts" thing all mixed up. :lol:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by SnnY+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SnnY)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>they should have done it for their fellow soldiers if nothing else.

This way someone else might have died in their stead.

I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s wrong to doubt the administration, but in the case of this desertion, maybe duty should have been attended to first.
[/b]

Why? If they had served in Iraq maybe they would be dead and their fellow soldiers would be still alive. I don&#39;t believe they should be forced to "do it for their fellow soldiers" at all. What if they didn&#39;t like their fellow soldiers? Why should they go to a war they don&#39;t agree with to be human shields for guys they hate?

"Do it for your mates" is the worst kind of pressure.

<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank
Signing up for the military is a job, and in every job sometimes you have to do things that you don&#39;t like to do. The circumstances may be different but its still their job, and that&#39;s what they signed up for. What the hell did they think they signed up for when they joined the military just to play pretend. [/quote]
So if enlisting in the military is a job, then shouldn&#39;t they have the right to quit if they feel that strongly? If you&#39;re working and given something to do that you think is wrong, would you put your beliefs and morals on the back burner all because your employer tells you you have to do something? [/b][/quote]
Quitting and is one thing but these clowns left the country. If they apposed the war and felt it was against their beliefs why didn&#39;t they stay and stand up for what they believe in?[/b][/quote]

Hank, I thing the point was that they didn&#39;t agree with the war, so they left. What would be the point of staying and whinging all the time? "I&#39;m going to stay in the army to show how much I don&#39;t want to be here" :blink: .

And like any other "job", some of it can be good and some of it can be bad. They may for instance have quite liked serving with a unit attached to a UN peace keeping mission, protecting innocent civilians and serving their countries commitments to the UN.

Perhaps they, like a lot of other people could see that Iraq was an overy political war (all war is political in some way, but not often as petty as Bush&#39;s reasons for it), and they decided they didn&#39;t want to be part of such a stupid mission.

I mean "OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM". Come on now, if that title isn&#39;t Bush blatantly trying to sell the invasion like a used car I don&#39;t know what is. The Pentagon have guys sitting around making up code names and then cross-referencing them against the mission to make sure nobody can guess what it is from the name.

Or maybe Operation Iraqi Freedom was meant to be in North Korea to really fuck with people&#39;s heads...

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 May 2004 - 04:24


Ok RF this one&#39;s for you:link (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/1997/9731347e.htm)
There are more articles but it would take weeks to read all that.


I&#39;m pretty sure I said "Had complied with or were in the process of complying with" at the time of the coalition invasion....

Im pretty sure the coalition never invaded in 1997....

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Alex H@4 May 2004 - 01:38
Hank, I thing the point was that they didn&#39;t agree with the war, so they left. What would be the point of staying and whinging all the time? "I&#39;m going to stay in the army to show how much I don&#39;t want to be here" :blink: .
That&#39;s fine that they had a disagreement with the Presidents decision not everyone will agree with him on every thing. The point that they would make by staying would be to stand up for what the believe in and say that this isn&#39;t right and we&#39;re not going. RF and I were talking in another thread about being called for service and I asked if he would report to this war if called upon and he said that he had been called to go and he refused. The thing is he told them he wasn&#39;t going to go for he own reasons but he didn&#39;t leave the country. He took a stand and said I don&#39;t believe in the cause am I&#39;m not going to fight.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 May 2004 - 16:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 May 2004 - 16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@4 May 2004 - 01:38
Hank, I thing the point was that they didn&#39;t agree with the war, so they left. What would be the point of staying and whinging all the time? "I&#39;m going to stay in the army to show how much I don&#39;t want to be here" :blink: .
That&#39;s fine that they had a disagreement with the Presidents decision not everyone will agree with him on every thing. The point that they would make by staying would be to stand up for what the believe in and say that this isn&#39;t right and we&#39;re not going. RF and I were talking in another thread about being called for service and I asked if he would report to this war if called upon and he said that he had been called to go and he refused. The thing is he told them he wasn&#39;t going to go for he own reasons but he didn&#39;t leave the country. He took a stand and said I don&#39;t believe in the cause am I&#39;m not going to fight. [/b][/quote]
I told em on the phone..

I never received paperwork (callup papers) so I dont know how i would have reacted to that.

I remember being quite upset at the time, and you may actually be able to dig up some posts in Jan/Feb last year, where i was telling people how pissed i was.

[Alex H]

Bugger, that sucks RF (not you, the situation).

Personally I&#39;m not sure what I would do if I was called up. There is a part of me that would say "Do your duty, you owe that to your family and friends", and then another part would say "Why should some guy in a suit tell me what my duty is? If he hadn&#39;t failed in his, I wouldn&#39;t be in this mess right now."

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 May 2004 - 12:36
I remember being quite upset at the time, and you may actually be able to dig up some posts in Jan/Feb last year, where i was telling people how pissed i was.
I went back and read some of those post from way back and it was quite good reading.

You had mentioned El Jefe in the other thread and now I see what you were talking about. He seemed like he was a real sharp guy and someone that I would have liked to have discussions with. I mean no disrespect to you by that, I like having discussions or more like debates with you. Although we have differences in opinion we still discuss that matter it respectfully.