[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

They hope to gain support by educating people about the reasons why deserters moved north instead of following deployment orders to Iraq, Robidoux said.

Personally, I'd like to hear their reasons for joining the military in the first place and how they justify getting a free education and a paycheque while bailing on THEIR responsibilities.

$1:

When people hear what it is that motivated them, but also what they've given up to seek asylum in Canada, I think it's obvious to most people that Canada should let them stay and not send them to face punishment in jail.

I think it's only obvious to those with their heads shoved up their asses. Gee, I wonder what motivated them to join up voluntarily in the first place!
Of course, I don't expect any of the bleeding hearts involved in this to ask the REALLY tough questions.

[jeff744]

The only problem I see about it is what if one of the deserters served in Iraq once and was about to be sent again despite the fact they don't want to. They have already served once and are being sent again, backing out of their responsibilities doesn't really fit when you have seen war, hated it and wanted out but you cannot leave.

The ones that leave when war was mentioned I could care less about.

[SprCForr]

IGA IGA:

Normally I would say the deserters should be sent back. They volunteered so they should fulfill their obligations. But there was a movie on history channel last night called StopLos. This is about soldiers that have done what they agreed to do but are forced to reenlist. I think if any of the soldiers being forced to do this came to Canada thet should have the right to stay

You've misunderstood a few crucial points.

First is, they aren't forced to re-enlist, they are still serving. No one who was finished was forced to rejoin.

Secondly, a person that joins the US Armed Forces is obligated to serve eight yrs. That eight year period of obligation can be broken into initial active service and the remainder of the eight in a reserve component. Stop loss, when ordered by the president, keeps those affected where they are (bottomline is they remain deployable with their unit).

Last, this isn't something just foisted upon them. It's been policy since the 70's and is a part of the contract they all signed when they joined.

Hell, our guys are under the same sort of thing. If it's determined by the government that it's a national emergency, the terms of service get lengthened to the duration of the emergency, however long that it may be.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

jeff744 jeff744:

The only problem I see about it is what if one of the deserters served in Iraq once and was about to be sent again despite the fact they don't want to. They have already served once and are being sent again, backing out of their responsibilities doesn't really fit when you have seen war, hated it and wanted out but you cannot leave.

Then don't join the military.
Do you honestly think the guys that fought on the jungle and coral islands of the Pacific wanted to be there?
Do you think the guys that fought in the Hertgen Forest wanted to be there?
Quite frankly, with the exception of the oddball, I don't know too many combat vets that wanted to be where they were. They sure weren't havin' a good ol' time either.
Sorry but not enjoying combat is a piss poor reason for desertion, and breach of contract is definitely backing out of their responsibilities.
Joining the military isn't a means to an end, ie; get paid while getting a free education, it's a commitment. If one has ANY issue with the possibility they might have to kill somebody, then sign up for a mechanics battalion, or as a corpsman, or supply. Hell, the non-coms make up a far greater portion than the combat soldiers anyway so it's not like there aren't alternatives if one still wants to join.

[jeff744]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

jeff744 jeff744:

The only problem I see about it is what if one of the deserters served in Iraq once and was about to be sent again despite the fact they don't want to. They have already served once and are being sent again, backing out of their responsibilities doesn't really fit when you have seen war, hated it and wanted out but you cannot leave.

Then don't join the military.
Do you honestly think the guys that fought on the jungle and coral islands of the Pacific wanted to be there?
Do you think the guys that fought in the Hertgen Forest wanted to be there?
Quite frankly, with the exception of the oddball, I don't know too many combat vets that wanted to be where they were. They sure weren't havin' a good ol' time either.
Sorry but not enjoying combat is a piss poor reason for desertion, and breach of contract is definitely backing out of their responsibilities.
Joining the military isn't a means to an end, ie; get paid while getting a free education, it's a commitment. If one has ANY issue with the possibility they might have to kill somebody, then sign up for a mechanics battalion, or as a corpsman, or supply. Hell, the non-coms make up a far greater portion than the combat soldiers anyway so it's not like there aren't alternatives if one still wants to join.

Seeing it on paper and TV is a lot different than actually being there and experiencing it. Many people don't end up in the job they planned on or leave because it was different from what they expected, the military takes away the option to leave.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

jeff744 jeff744:

Seeing it on paper and TV is a lot different than actually being there and experiencing it. Many people don't end up in the job they planned on or leave because it was different from what they expected, the military takes away the option to leave.

No it doesn't. The individual signed a contract with the army. Like I said, if one has issues with the possibility of killing, there are other avenues to take within the military.
On top of it all, it's NO reason for Canada to accept these deserters as legit refugees.

[jeff744]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

jeff744 jeff744:

Seeing it on paper and TV is a lot different than actually being there and experiencing it. Many people don't end up in the job they planned on or leave because it was different from what they expected, the military takes away the option to leave.

No it doesn't. The individual signed a contract with the army. Like I said, if one has issues with the possibility of killing, there are other avenues to take within the military.
On top of it all, it's NO reason for Canada to accept these deserters as legit refugees.

What if they have already served and killed and don't want to go again? They still have no way out.

[raydan]

Right or wrong, would any one of you want to go into a combat area with someone that REALLY doesn't want to be there (bad enough that he was ready to desert and go to Canada illegally), but is protecting your back.

[Guy_Fawkes]

jeff744 jeff744:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

jeff744 jeff744:

Seeing it on paper and TV is a lot different than actually being there and experiencing it. Many people don't end up in the job they planned on or leave because it was different from what they expected, the military takes away the option to leave.

No it doesn't. The individual signed a contract with the army. Like I said, if one has issues with the possibility of killing, there are other avenues to take within the military.
On top of it all, it's NO reason for Canada to accept these deserters as legit refugees.

What if they have already served and killed and don't want to go again? They still have no way out.

Yes they do, its called jail. They go to jail but do not have to 'go and kill again'.

[martin14]

raydan raydan:

Right or wrong, would any one of you want to go into a combat area with someone that REALLY doesn't want to be there (bad enough that he was ready to desert and go to Canada illegally), but is protecting your back.

Fair enough RD, it would be better for all if these cowards
would man up and do the greybar time.

But these selfish shits have to make a show for all.

[djakeydd]

yeah, maybe harper can get his ass kicked out of the UN next time he ventures down and retaliate on these american's in kind. Waaaayyy to go harp , you little fascist you.

[djakeydd]

These guys are the grade 4 debating team, maybe they should head over to Iraq and show these americans how its done. Maybe they could go help harper get his ass kicked out of nyc and the UN next time he ventures down as well.

[RUEZ]

djakeydd djakeydd:

Waaaayyy to go harp , you little fascist you.

You don't understand what the word means, you should stop using it.

[Curtman]

RUEZ RUEZ:

djakeydd djakeydd:

Waaaayyy to go harp , you little fascist you.

You don't understand what the word means, you should stop using it.

$1:

any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism

Alright? Carry on djakeydd.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Curtman Curtman:

RUEZ RUEZ:

djakeydd djakeydd:

Waaaayyy to go harp , you little fascist you.

You don't understand what the word means, you should stop using it.

$1:

any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism

Alright? Carry on djakeydd.

He is the leader of a party elected democratically and participates in the democratic process, of a democratic government!

You're both either trolls or morons, take your pick....