U.S. War Resister denied Asylum in Canada

[GMO]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...a/war_resister

[Franklinnoble]

So?

I have no problem with someone not wanting to go to war, as long as they're prepared to accept the consequences.

[Fritz]

whelp, thats about what Canada said they would a few years ago.

soldier got what bargained for, imho

[jamesUMD]

what the F*** do people think they are signing up for????? We have an entirely volunteer military. You join up, soak up the benefits, and then when they actually want to put you to use for what they trained you for, and you what, leave the country????

He was even in the freaking Infantry. I have no compassion for this moron. I hope he get's 5 years, a dishonorable discharge, and his kid grows up seeing what happens when you shirk obligations that you voluntarily make.

[tategter]

Originally Posted by jamesUMD

what the F*** do people think they are signing up for????? We have an entirely volunteer military. You join up, soak up the benefits, and then when they actually want to put you to use for what they trained you for, and you what, leave the country????

He was even in the freaking Infantry. I have no compassion for this moron. I hope he get's 5 years, a dishonorable discharge, and his kid grows up seeing what happens when you shirk obligations that you voluntarily make.

Yup...you sign on the dotted line, you become property of the government. He is a coward. Plain and simple.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad over 'just because he doesn't want to fight doesn't make him a coward', rememeber that he signed-up for the army and took an oath. When he broke that oath because he didn't want to do his job he confirmed his cowardice.

[Raiders Army]

/agree with the above sentiments.

I wonder why people don't desert to Mexico instead of Canada. Isn't the dollar worth more than the peso than the Canadian dollar?

[st.cronin]

Plus the weather's nicer.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Looks like he's got a trip to Leavenworth and a room with A big guy named bubba.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm sure none of you care, but I heard this guy interviewed on NPR this morning.

His story is that he found out, after he joined the army (to earn money for college, like the ads say), that he couldn't kill people. He told his chain of command this, and asked, offered, and pleaded that he be assigned to another role than infantryman, including, in his own words "a human shield".

His Chain of Command ignored his every request.

In an all-volunteer army, I have to wonder what the point is of forcing people into combat.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm sure none of you care, but I heard this guy interviewed on NPR this morning.

His story is that he found out, after he joined the army (to earn money for college, like the ads say), that he couldn't kill people. He told his chain of command this, and asked, offered, and pleaded that he be assigned to another role than infantryman, including, in his own words "a human shield".

His Chain of Command ignored his every request.

In an all-volunteer army, I have to wonder what the point is of forcing people into combat.

Hehe. He's full of it. There are Rules of Engagement, to be sure, but he can certainly kill some people (and the best way to do that is by being an 11B). Now, you can't kill the people you work with, and maybe that's what his disgruntlement was.

As far as your last point, no one is forcing people into combat. They chose to be in the Army, and if they didn't think they could ever go into combat, then there's something wrong there. History proves that the Army predominantly goes to war when the nation goes to war. If he joined the Peace Corps, then he might have an argument.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm sure none of you care, but I heard this guy interviewed on NPR this morning.

His story is that he found out, after he joined the army (to earn money for college, like the ads say), that he couldn't kill people. He told his chain of command this, and asked, offered, and pleaded that he be assigned to another role than infantryman, including, in his own words "a human shield".

His Chain of Command ignored his every request.

In an all-volunteer army, I have to wonder what the point is of forcing people into combat.

You sign up, you do as you're told. It's not up for discussion. It's the damned army, for crying out loud.

He took the money. He knows soldiers sometimes have to kill people. He now objects, and he now goes to jail. I don't see a problem here.

[MrBug708]

Not sure what Flare said though. Maybe he made a grammatical error, but it sounds like the guy WANTED to kill people

[rkmsuf]

I think he meant he couldn't bring himself to kill people.

[Raiders Army]

Either way, you can kill people in the Army especially by going to combat in a warzone or if you don't want to kill people, what the fuck did you think an 11B does?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I think he meant he couldn't bring himself to kill people.

That's what I meant (and what he said). Bad grammar on my part.

If we assume that some (most?) people don't know if they can bring themselves to kill another person until it's clear they're going to have to do so, then I think his defense is plausible. I wonder how many people sign up for the Army, sure that they can kill people, if necessary, and then find out later, perhaps in bad circumstances, that they can't?

This isn't something I'm making up. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... are littered with stories of soldiers who froze up when faced with the idea of killing people. Which brings me around to my point. In WWI and WWII the Army didn't have a choice - it needed men on the ground, and it needed them to overcome these psychological blocks.

However, in today's all-volunteer Army, should we do the same thing? If someone really can't kill another, has a psychological block about it, he poses a real threat to his company. He's a weak link. Question is, what do you do about these guys? Can you weed them out before they sign up (which clearly isn't done)? Can you find other roles for them (which explicitly wasn't done in this case)?

Just some food for thought, folks.

[Desnudo]

My food for thought is that I'm glad the son of a bitch deserted before he got some other, more valuable Americans, killed over in Iraq.

[duckman]

When you join the military, your primary job is to be a professional soldier regardless what your secondary role is. In other words, if you are a cook in the Army, you are still a trained to kill the enemy. If they need you out on the front lines more than scrabbling eggs, then, you are going to the front lines to fight.

A lot of people are ignorant when it comes to this ideal when they first join up. They think "I will get a steady 40 hour work week, decent benefits, travel, and money for college" without thinking they may have to shoot someone for those benefits. So, I don't feel sorry for him. He knew what his job entailed (it's not like a big secret), but he thought he would get lucky and not fight for four years. His main problem is he needs to take some kind of American military history course.

Also, basic training is the weeding out process. It's not fun and games when they cram down your throats that you will be a killing machine after so many weeks. If he made it through that process, he is capable of pointing a rifle and shooting someone.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by duckman

When you join the military, your primary job is to be a professional soldier regardless what your secondary role is. In other words, if you are a cook in the Army, you are still a trained to kill the enemy. If they need you out on the front lines more than scrabbling eggs, then, you are going to the front lines to fight.

American History is full of examples of rear echelon troops being caught in the fray. Battle of the Bulge has several examples of cooks, etc being given arms to defend key spots. And remember that the Jessica Lynch convoy was full of non-combatant transport troops who had to dig out their M-16s. And on and on and on.

There is no such thing as a non-combatant role in the military. So there is no way for the Army to honor his request.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's what I meant (and what he said). Bad grammar on my part.

If we assume that some (most?) people don't know if they can bring themselves to kill another person until it's clear they're going to have to do so, then I think his defense is plausible. I wonder how many people sign up for the Army, sure that they can kill people, if necessary, and then find out later, perhaps in bad circumstances, that they can't?

This isn't something I'm making up. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... are littered with stories of soldiers who froze up when faced with the idea of killing people. Which brings me around to my point. In WWI and WWII the Army didn't have a choice - it needed men on the ground, and it needed them to overcome these psychological blocks.

However, in today's all-volunteer Army, should we do the same thing? If someone really can't kill another, has a psychological block about it, he poses a real threat to his company. He's a weak link. Question is, what do you do about these guys? Can you weed them out before they sign up (which clearly isn't done)? Can you find other roles for them (which explicitly wasn't done in this case)?

Just some food for thought, folks.

Hmmm....I'm not so sure. There is a big difference in your example. When soldiers are faced with killing someone and can't, usually that is then and there in the situation. This guy said he couldn't kill someone when the situation wasn't even there sitting at him in the face. I guarantee you, that if you've trained with some guys, you would be willing to kill people that you don't know to save their lives. If he couldn't, then I guess being a human shield is a good role for him. Throw him on the grenade.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

American History is full of examples of rear echelon troops being caught in the fray. Battle of the Bulge has several examples of cooks, etc being given arms to defend key spots. And remember that the Jessica Lynch convoy was full of non-combatant transport troops who had to dig out their M-16s. And on and on and on.

There is no such thing as a non-combatant role in the military. So there is no way for the Army to honor his request.

What you're saying is very true today. We fight an asymmetrical war where soldiers in the rear, reserve, main, and advance must fight. I think he was scared of dying versus not wanting to kill someone. That to me, my friends, is what we call a pussy.

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's what I meant (and what he said). Bad grammar on my part.

If we assume that some (most?) people don't know if they can bring themselves to kill another person until it's clear they're going to have to do so, then I think his defense is plausible. I wonder how many people sign up for the Army, sure that they can kill people, if necessary, and then find out later, perhaps in bad circumstances, that they can't?

This isn't something I'm making up. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc... are littered with stories of soldiers who froze up when faced with the idea of killing people. Which brings me around to my point. In WWI and WWII the Army didn't have a choice - it needed men on the ground, and it needed them to overcome these psychological blocks.

However, in today's all-volunteer Army, should we do the same thing? If someone really can't kill another, has a psychological block about it, he poses a real threat to his company. He's a weak link. Question is, what do you do about these guys? Can you weed them out before they sign up (which clearly isn't done)? Can you find other roles for them (which explicitly wasn't done in this case)?

Just some food for thought, folks.

The problem with this is that if you make it a policy that people who can't bring themselves to kill someone will be moved into a (mostly) noncombat role, most of the soldiers in the Army would suddenly find themselves unable to bring themselves to kill others and ask for noncombat roles. We cannot have that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by duckman

A lot of people are ignorant when it comes to this ideal when they first join up. They think "I will get a steady 40 hour work week, decent benefits, travel, and money for college" without thinking they may have to shoot someone for those benefits.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps because that's what the Army emphasizes in its commercials and that's what it's recruiters emphasize? Just try and get a recruiter to talk about killing people - it's not easy.

Look, I'm not trying to defend the guy, per se, I'm trying to get you guys to broaden your horizons a bit.

Here's my point:

Given that 1) The Army's recruitment program continues to stress non-combat aspects of the Army to the exclusion of actual discussion of combat and 2) it's unclear whether or not the Army's training actually conditions people to kill other people....

I propose that:

1. We now have an Army in which a good number of troops are not psychologically prepared to kill other people.

2. These people represent a serious threat to their fellow servicemen.

3. No one has yet proposed a serious way to deal with this issue.

Based on this, I ask you all to either:

1. Disagree with the above points and provide rationale/examples why.

or

2. Agree with some/all of the above points and postulate what could be done about this situation.


On a side note.... Although I agree with all of you who say "Look, you signed up for the Army, you may have to go to war", I urge you to examine the way the Army has been sold. Prior to 2002 you would be hard-pressed to find a recruiter who would talk to you about going to war. These guys are salesmen, they're not going to tell you what you want to hear. They say things like "sign up for X commission, and you'll never be deployed" or "join this company and you'll never see combat". Now we know that's all BS, but does every High School kid who gets the hard sell know it's BS? Of course they don't.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I propose that:

1. We now have an Army in which a good number of troops are not psychologically prepared to kill other people.

2. These people represent a serious threat to their fellow servicemen.

3. No one has yet proposed a serious way to deal with this issue.

Based on this, I ask you all to either:

1. Disagree with the above points and provide rationale/examples why.

or

2. Agree with some/all of the above points and postulate what could be done about this situation.

1. Disagree. Where is your proof? What is a "good number"?
2. Disagree. Even the soldiers who are not psychologically prepared to kill other people are not necessarily a serious threat to their fellow servicemen. They may rise to the challenge given the right incentives (i.e. someone is shooting at them, their buddy just got killed, etc.).
3. Doesn't matter. You haven't proven that there is a large scale issue. Even if there is, it's simple....court-martial.

I've asked you in another thread, but you never answered. Have you ever served in the military? No offense, but your arguments don't seem to have much weight to those who have served.

[jamesUMD]

Within the 1st 2 days of basic training you know exactly why you are there. If people decide very quickly the military is not for them, the military will make sure your butt gets sent home back to the civilian sector. This guy sucked up the benefits for what 2-3 years, up until it was time to pay the piper, and then he claimed it was an unrightous war?????

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

On a side note.... Although I agree with all of you who say "Look, you signed up for the Army, you may have to go to war", I urge you to examine the way the Army has been sold. Prior to 2002 you would be hard-pressed to find a recruiter who would talk to you about going to war. These guys are salesmen, they're not going to tell you what you want to hear. They say things like "sign up for X commission, and you'll never be deployed" or "join this company and you'll never see combat". Now we know that's all BS, but does every High School kid who gets the hard sell know it's BS? Of course they don't.

This reminds me. I was talking with a guy in school who said he was joining the Army after he finished. I asked him if he was worried about being sent over to Iraq, he said "naw, the recruiter told me no one gets sent over there in there first term." I nearly laughed my head off. I told him when I joined up, I was told "no one gets sent over seas in there first term." When I got to training, I found out that EVERYONE in my job was sent to Germany in their first term.

Always remember, kiddies, how can you tell when a recruiter or a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.

[Fritz]

FWIW, Alvin York once thought he could not kill people. I don't think that is something you know for sure until it happens. Just a guess, since I have never been put in that position.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

/agree with the above sentiments.

I wonder why people don't desert to Mexico instead of Canada. Isn't the dollar worth more than the peso than the Canadian dollar?

Sure, but you can't drink the water.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What you're saying is very true today. We fight an asymmetrical war where soldiers in the rear, reserve, main, and advance must fight. I think he was scared of dying versus not wanting to kill someone. That to me, my friends, is what we call a pussy.

i think for this thread to work, anyone in this thread who's been in active duty and actually served in the Armed Forces should raise their hand (i already know of a few in here). the rest should not be calling anyone a pussy.

i don't want to die and i don't like doing the dirty work of rich old white men who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. thus, the Armed Forces isn't for me. so what's the difference between me - who doesn't join up - and this other guy who decided this isn't for him? i've already had 2 career changes - i've left PR and insurance industries because they weren't for me. no one is allowed to change their minds?

don't blame it on some people that they come from a background where joining the army is sometimes the only way to get to college. there's a reason why the armed forces is comprised of people from lower income backgrounds and don't have much, as opposed to the rich kids of wealthy business people and politicians.

you people say "he took an oath". maybe he took the oath because that was the only way to get ahead in life. maybe he honestly *did* want to serve his country, just not be a killing machine or have to die for it. why isn't there a way for you to serve your country that doesn't involve possibly having to put someone in a body bag?

in any event, doesn't look like he would have been much use in combat. Army should have accomodated someone who could have put other lives in danger.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i don't want to die and i don't like doing the dirty work of rich old white men who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. thus, the Armed Forces isn't for me.

And that right there is the beauty of an all-volunteer force. The reason we are so good is because we have the people who want to be in the military, not a bunch of people who don't trust the American government. Freedom of choice is a powerful tool America has given us all.

[GMO]

Is this something like someone signing a contract with a NFL team, getting the signing bonus but then before the first game say that he doesn't want to play because he's decided he doesn't like rough games that includes tackling people?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by GMO

Is this something like someone signing a contract with a NFL team, getting the signing bonus but then before the first game say that he doesn't want to play because he's decided he doesn't like rough games that includes tackling people?

It's not a good example if playing tackle football is guaranteed. I think if you want to equate it to football, the best example would be that Billy Joe Tolliver (or Hebert?) who signed in Buffalo to be the backup a few years back.

He signed for something like $500,000 a year for 2 years. And when the starting QB was hurt one game, he says, "Sorry coach, I haven't been studying the playbook all season, you better put somebody else in."

He was quickly cut. He liked the idea of football, he like collecting the paycheck, but he didn't actually want to contribute.

[Poli]

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i think for this thread to work, anyone in this thread who's been in active duty and actually served in the Armed Forces should raise their hand (i already know of a few in here). the rest should not be calling anyone a pussy.

For the record, I am in the Army. The deserter is a pussy.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i don't want to die and i don't like doing the dirty work of rich old white men who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. thus, the Armed Forces isn't for me. so what's the difference between me - who doesn't join up - and this other guy who decided this isn't for him? i've already had 2 career changes - i've left PR and insurance industries because they weren't for me. no one is allowed to change their minds?

Apples and oranges. He signed a contract. Regardless of knowing the risks involved, he was contractually obligated to perform his duty. Even if he changed his mind, he still had an obligation. Did you leave those PR and insurance industries when they asked you do something that had to do with insurance or PR? Or did you leave them once your obligation was up?

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

don't blame it on some people that they come from a background where joining the army is sometimes the only way to get to college. there's a reason why the armed forces is comprised of people from lower income backgrounds and don't have much, as opposed to the rich kids of wealthy business people and politicians.

Point taken; however, this is a volunteer military. They joined of their own free will. No one held a gun to their heads.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

you people say "he took an oath". maybe he took the oath because that was the only way to get ahead in life. maybe he honestly *did* want to serve his country, just not be a killing machine or have to die for it. why isn't there a way for you to serve your country that doesn't involve possibly having to put someone in a body bag?

Regardless of the reasons why you take an oath, you should still be bound by it. If your word is meaningless, then you aren't a man.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

in any event, doesn't look like he would have been much use in combat. Army should have accomodated someone who could have put other lives in danger.

Think about that for a second. If we let him go, then think about the flood of others that would follow. Do you mean to tell me that you would feel good if your hard earned money that goes to taxes was pissed away on training and benefits for people who join the military and then decide it's just not for them?

[rant]Incredulously, I believe that you and many others would think it would be okay. Frankly I think that a lot of people feel guilt over not serving or willing to die for their country. They are some of the people who cry about not having body armor or cry about why can't we let a deserter just go to Canada. If your idea of what the military is like comes from watching Blackhawk Down or Band of Brothers you are way off base. I'm not saying that the Army life is like that sometimes, but you haven't seen the other side of things.[/rant]

[Bubba Wheels]

All he had to do was borrow from Chevy Chase in Caddyshack. When the girl asks him why he wasn't drafted he states 'I was homosexual" then catching himself as he finishes pouring her drink he adds "but I'm much better now!"

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

For the record, I am in the Army. The deserter is a pussy.



Apples and oranges. He signed a contract. Regardless of knowing the risks involved, he was contractually obligated to perform his duty. Even if he changed his mind, he still had an obligation. Did you leave those PR and insurance industries when they asked you do something that had to do with insurance or PR? Or did you leave them once your obligation was up?



Point taken; however, this is a volunteer military. They joined of their own free will. No one held a gun to their heads.



Regardless of the reasons why you take an oath, you should still be bound by it. If your word is meaningless, then you aren't a man.


Think about that for a second. If we let him go, then think about the flood of others that would follow. Do you mean to tell me that you would feel good if your hard earned money that goes to taxes was pissed away on training and benefits for people who join the military and then decide it's just not for them?

[rant]Incredulously, I believe that you and many others would think it would be okay. Frankly I think that a lot of people feel guilt over not serving or willing to die for their country. They are some of the people who cry about not having body armor or cry about why can't we let a deserter just go to Canada. If your idea of what the military is like comes from watching Blackhawk Down or Band of Brothers you are way off base. I'm not saying that the Army life is like that sometimes, but you haven't seen the other side of things.[/rant]

Good thing everyone always completely fulfills every contract that is signed in this country and around the world.

The whole "contract" argument is a load of crap. Tons of people in various professions (which is what I think our armed forces are, a noble one at that) break/get out of/change contracts that were signed every day. Do you really want some schlub fighting in a battle who doesn't want to be there? Wouldn't that endanger his companymates?

[Raiders Army]

I don't believe you're thinking things through clearly Chubby.

1. A contract between the government, your government, and a citizen to protect this nation and possibly die for this nation is more important than say ordering 50 widgets from Office Max. If you do believe that contracts are the same no matter what, then it's okay to commit war crimes, because hey, contracts are signed and broken every day.

2. Say we let this guy go, no harm done. How do you know he doesn't want to kill someone or whether he's chicken? Additionally, how do you recoup the costs of training, benefits, etc.? Are you, Joe Taxpayer, going to be okay with that? What happens when there are many more soldiers who want to do the same thing?

[Dutch]

The whole "contract" argument is a load of crap. Tons of people in various professions (which is what I think our armed forces are, a noble one at that) break/get out of/change contracts that were signed every day.

The military is a profession. But it's objective is to fight and win wars against our enemies. Not to mow the grass back at Camp Pendleton (Marine base in California). You don't get a free college education and money for college after you get out for mowing grass. They can just pay some civlian to do that. You get all your military benefits and college money for being available to go and fight wars.

If everybody can just mow grass for a couple of years then quit the military when the shit hits the fan, it would be a massive waste and a complete failure of a system.

Do you really want some schlub fighting in a battle who doesn't want to be there? Wouldn't that endanger his companymates?

I would bet most of the people in Iraq would rather be in front of their TV's at home in the US enjoying their Saturday. It's a sacrifice. So I guess you could say that most of the people in Iraq are 'schlubs', but I think they are just taking their obligation seriously.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I don't believe you're thinking things through clearly Chubby.

1. A contract between the government, your government, and a citizen to protect this nation and possibly die for this nation is more important than say ordering 50 widgets from Office Max. If you do believe that contracts are the same no matter what, then it's okay to commit war crimes, because hey, contracts are signed and broken every day.

2. Say we let this guy go, no harm done. How do you know he doesn't want to kill someone or whether he's chicken? Additionally, how do you recoup the costs of training, benefits, etc.? Are you, Joe Taxpayer, going to be okay with that? What happens when there are many more soldiers who want to do the same thing?

Raiders does such a better job at explaining this shit. He must be an officer.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I don't believe you're thinking things through clearly Chubby.

1. A contract between the government, your government, and a citizen to protect this nation and possibly die for this nation is more important than say ordering 50 widgets from Office Max. If you do believe that contracts are the same no matter what, then it's okay to commit war crimes, because hey, contracts are signed and broken every day.

2. Say we let this guy go, no harm done. How do you know he doesn't want to kill someone or whether he's chicken? Additionally, how do you recoup the costs of training, benefits, etc.? Are you, Joe Taxpayer, going to be okay with that? What happens when there are many more soldiers who want to do the same thing?

Please show me the laws that say a contract with the government is for some reason different than a contract between 2 people or between any other entities.

I'd also love to know how "contracts are contracts" = warcrimes are ok. Is this like saying "If you don't support the war, the terrorists win"?

I would much rather have an army of professionals that want to be there, that will use my future tax dollars in a constructive manner than waste future tax dollars on some guy who changed his mind and doesn't want to be in the armed forces anymore. We've already spent the tax dollars on the guy's training, keeping him in the army where he might risk other soldiers' lives isn't going to get that money back.

If other soldiers want to leave as well than so be it. Maybe that's an indication of the importantance or "rightness" or the current actions of our military (even if it's not the military's decision for what they do, the pres/congress)


Do you want 5 guys who do nothing but try to come up with ways to get out of the army standing next to you protecting your life? Would you not want the same kind of professional that you are that will give their full attention to the mission at hand?

[larrymcg421]

I am against the war as much as anyone else, but unfortunately I can't really support this guy. There is no draft. He had a choice whether to sign up or not. My guess is he wanted all the benefits that army life provided but he doesn't want to be subject to the risks. Too bad. It doesn't work like that.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Please show me the laws that say a contract with the government is for some reason different than a contract between 2 people or between any other entities.

I guess you're saying that contracts are the same.

Originally Posted by Chubby

I'd also love to know how "contracts are contracts" = warcrimes are ok. Is this like saying "If you don't support the war, the terrorists win"?

Hmm...the Geneva Conventions are a good contract of how we fight a war. If a vehicle has the Red Cross or Red Crescent on it, we are not allowed to fire upon it (of course, there are exceptions to this rule). I guess I can break that contract since Mike Tice broke his contract not to re-sell Superbowl tickets.

Originally Posted by Chubby

I would much rather have an army of professionals that want to be there, that will use my future tax dollars in a constructive manner than waste future tax dollars on some guy who changed his mind and doesn't want to be in the armed forces anymore. We've already spent the tax dollars on the guy's training, keeping him in the army where he might risk other soldiers' lives isn't going to get that money back.

If other soldiers want to leave as well than so be it. Maybe that's an indication of the importantance or "rightness" or the current actions of our military (even if it's not the military's decision for what they do, the pres/congress)


Do you want 5 guys who do nothing but try to come up with ways to get out of the army standing next to you protecting your life? Would you not want the same kind of professional that you are that will give their full attention to the mission at hand?

No, I don't want those 5 guys with me. I want them court-martialed and sent to prison for 5 years, receive a bad conduct discharge, and not receive any benefits. This is much easier on them than the maximum penalty, hanging them by the neck until they're dead because they are deserters.

I find it funny that if you ask a legal question and a lawyer on this board responds, you take his opinion seriously. I find it funny that if a programming question is asked on this board and a programmer responds, you take it at face value.

I am in the Army. I tell you how it is. You continue to believe that you're right.

BTW, yes, Dutch, I am an officer.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I guess you're saying that contracts are the same.


Hmm...the Geneva Conventions are a good contract of how we fight a war. If a vehicle has the Red Cross or Red Crescent on it, we are not allowed to fire upon it (of course, there are exceptions to this rule). I guess I can break that contract since Mike Tice broke his contract not to re-sell Superbowl tickets.


No, I don't want those 5 guys with me. I want them court-martialed and sent to prison for 5 years, receive a bad conduct discharge, and not receive any benefits. This is much easier on them than the maximum penalty, hanging them by the neck until they're dead because they are deserters.

I find it funny that if you ask a legal question and a lawyer on this board responds, you take his opinion seriously. I find it funny that if a programming question is asked on this board and a programmer responds, you take it at face value.

I am in the Army. I tell you how it is. You continue to believe that you're right.

BTW, yes, Dutch, I am an officer.

You haven't been reading my posts then

I love the "two wrongs make a right" argument. This football coach broke a contract so I can obviously fire on civilians. Puh-lease. Your logic in this regard is comical. Are there consequences for trying to break a contract? Sure, in most professions it's money or a forfeit of your right to sue. I don't however think that anyone who wants out of the military should be thrown in jail or killed as a traitor for simply wanting out. I can't fault a kid or anyone who signed up and was then forced to go fight a war they are supposed to. That doesn't really seem "volunteer" to me.

Get out of job A? - Can't work for a competitor.
Get out of job B? - Go to jail.

I'll bet you can tell which one is the military. Of course, the only possible recourse is not "can't work for a competitor" but I for one do not want my tax dollars or REAL servicemen's lives wasted by having soliders who don't want to be there farting around.

[Raiders Army]

Actually, I just re-read them with my wife.

I'm done because I have my opinion and you have yours. Again, just FYI, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum penalty for deserting is hanging until you're dead. I guess you as a civilian have no concept of something that the military obviously thinks is important.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Actually, I just re-read them with my wife.

I'm done because I have my opinion and you have yours. Again, just FYI, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum penalty for deserting is hanging until you're dead. I guess you as a civilian have no concept of something that the military obviously thinks is important.

Nope, I just have different beliefs and independant thoughts that conflict with what the military thinks. This is why I'd never ever join the military.

[Dutch]

Nope, I just have different beliefs and independant thoughts that conflict with what the military thinks. This is why I'd never ever join the military.

The military's beliefs is keeping our nation safe from harms way. How does that differ from your beliefs and independant thoughts?

I think what you mean to say is "The military isn't for you." And that's fine, that's why we have an all-volunteer force. Careful, the Democrats want you in the draft!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Careful, the Democrats want you in the draft!

Huh?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Huh?

The Dems have a few folks that think the current set-up encouraged the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq because their "rich sons and daughters" don't have to join the military. They assumed that if the draft were in place we would not have gone to war because their "rich sons and daughters" might have to go fight.

It's a dumb argument, bad logic, and brought to you by Senators of the Democrat flavor. I know, it sounds crazy but I saw them running around on all the TV stations for about a week with that debate.

[Airhog]

Please, we all know the rich sons and daughters would be sent to some cushy reserve job flying an outdated plane

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You haven't been reading my posts then

I love the "two wrongs make a right" argument. This football coach broke a contract so I can obviously fire on civilians. Puh-lease. Your logic in this regard is comical. Are there consequences for trying to break a contract? Sure, in most professions it's money or a forfeit of your right to sue. I don't however think that anyone who wants out of the military should be thrown in jail or killed as a traitor for simply wanting out. I can't fault a kid or anyone who signed up and was then forced to go fight a war they are supposed to. That doesn't really seem "volunteer" to me.

Get out of job A? - Can't work for a competitor.
Get out of job B? - Go to jail.

I'll bet you can tell which one is the military. Of course, the only possible recourse is not "can't work for a competitor" but I for one do not want my tax dollars or REAL servicemen's lives wasted by having soliders who don't want to be there farting around.

chubby and i are on the same page as this.

what i don't understand is why are there only two options to serve your country:

1. be a rich person and schmooze your way to a political career (ie, Congress) without so much as picking up a water gun.

2. risk your life and join the Armed Forces.

hate to break it to you, but if i came from a low income household out in the farms of Iowa and wanted to contribute to my country, my options would be limited to risking life and limb and joining the Army/Marines/Navy/Air Force. who knows, maybe this guy decided that the oath he took however long ago no longer applied. maybe he doesn't believe in this war. fuck, i don't believe in this war and feel we should have left a long time ago and i'm not even a soldier.

a common statement in this thread asks if i would want my taxes being wasted on a coward who squandered the training bought w/ my tax dollars. i say i don't want my tax dollars damning people to their deaths. if someone wants out and doesn't feel that they'd be able to survive then i don't want my tax dollars forcing them to their deaths. i don't want that on my conscience.

feel free to spin that now.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Airhog

Please, we all know the rich sons and daughters would be sent to some cushy reserve job flying an outdated plane

Yes, yes, one that was actually in service and flying in Vietnam when said rich kid went there (and it was deactivated after he had been assigned) while the other guy was hoping to avoid combat by joining the Navy.

Bottom line, we can take our shots, but they both served our country no matter how much we try and smear them.