[Zipperfish]

RUEZ wrote:

Why am I not surprised that you would try and twist my words to make it look like I think the military should be in total control? Especially in a thread about an awol soldier.

How dare you accuse me of twisting your words.. Especially since you said, and I quote:

RUEZ wrote:

I'll bet if we were to have a referendum the will of the people would be ... what the left is saying.

I'm so glad you've finally seen the light!

[commanderkai]

RUEZ wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

He said what he said. And his sentiments are not peculiar to him; it's a trait of the neoconservatives in general. The old conservatives valued freedom, but the neocons like huge state security apparatuses, banning everything they deem immoral, and complete and total subservience to anyone in a uniform.

Seeing as a civilian government oversees the military in Canada, then civilians absolutely should get involved in military affairs.

This is exactly what I said.

Quote:

Civilians should learn when to step aside and let the military do what it knows best. That includes disciplining it's own.

Why am I not surprised that you would try and twist my words to make it look like I think the military should be in total control? Especially in a thread about an awol soldier.

I loved how I got negative rep for that even though I understood exactly what you said. Oh well. I should shut it off because it let's people get away with things, especially the bullshit thing Streaker did, pretending to hold high ground.

No offense Zipper, the comment about how Conservatives hate freedom was pretty damn stupid.

[RUEZ]

commanderkai wrote:

RUEZ wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

He said what he said. And his sentiments are not peculiar to him; it's a trait of the neoconservatives in general. The old conservatives valued freedom, but the neocons like huge state security apparatuses, banning everything they deem immoral, and complete and total subservience to anyone in a uniform.

Seeing as a civilian government oversees the military in Canada, then civilians absolutely should get involved in military affairs.

This is exactly what I said.

Quote:

Civilians should learn when to step aside and let the military do what it knows best. That includes disciplining it's own.

Why am I not surprised that you would try and twist my words to make it look like I think the military should be in total control? Especially in a thread about an awol soldier.

I loved how I got negative rep for that even though I understood exactly what you said. Oh well. I should shut it off because it let's people get away with things, especially the bullshit thing Streaker did, pretending to hold high ground.

No offense Zipper, the comment about how Conservatives hate freedom was pretty damn stupid.

Don't worry about the reps, it's turned into a buddy system. It doesn't mean much.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai wrote:

I loved how I got negative rep for that even though I understood exactly what you said. Oh well. I should shut it off because it let's people get away with things, especially the bullshit thing Streaker did, pretending to hold high ground.

No offense Zipper, the comment about how Conservatives hate freedom was pretty damn stupid.

You got a negative rep because you gave me one even though you never presented a counter-argument. If it's any consolation, I tried to take it back later, because I thought it was petty thikng for me to do, but the system wouldn't let me.

Again, I base my opinion on facts, which I've presented here many times. The neo-conservatives are in favour of huge state security appratus (e.g. Homeland Security), arbitrary detention (Gunatanamo Bay), torture (water-boarding), limiting of individual freedoms (illegal wiretapping, Ptriot Act) and seeking to ban things just because they deem them immoral (same-sex marriage).

Ruez's statement was typical of the mentality behind the neo-cons auhthoritarian and socialist tendencies--beaically, just let the army do what it wants and civilians should stay out of the way.

There are still lots of libertarians and old conservatives around who are fighting the new authoritarianism of the neo-cons, and the neo-cons are slowly being done in due to their failure, especially their economic failures.

[herbie]

Tricks wrote:

herbie wrote:

Oooh, one got drafted the other signed on. Same reasons they left, petty difference.
Quitting your job is quitting your job, they want to come here let them.
Or should we send Russian conscripts and Chinese PLAs who make it here back too?

Wow, apparently someone doesn't understand the concept of contract. Signing a contract and neglecting to meet it isn't like quitting your job.

It's not ,eh?
You can't just sit at home and not report to training camp?
You can't go play in Sweden until it get renegotiated?
You can't just show up, and not perform until the other side rips it up?

It's a JOB. A public sector job. You guys gonna demand the head of a Postie who works unpaid overtime and sucks up to the boss for violating that contract?
Or you gonna tell me how different it is cuz soldiering is all glorious, flag-wrapped patriotic bullshit? A hell of a lot already can't distinguish between AWOL desertion and desertion under fire, which are 2 different things!
The dumbest part of the whole thing is that we're accepting politicizing the subject when the Armed Forces mainly just gives a dishonorable discharge and quietly moves these people out as they don't want them infecting the gung-ho types anyway. Repeat: It's a JOB and any sane employer knows you don't keep people around who don't want to be there.

[RUEZ]

Zipperfish wrote:

Ruez's statement was typical of the mentality behind the neo-cons auhthoritarian and socialist tendencies--beaically, just let the army do what it wants and civilians should stay out of the way.

No that wasn't my statement. Why do you continue to misquote me, despite my quote being just a few posts back?

[Tricks]

herbie wrote:

Tricks wrote:

herbie wrote:

Oooh, one got drafted the other signed on. Same reasons they left, petty difference.
Quitting your job is quitting your job, they want to come here let them.
Or should we send Russian conscripts and Chinese PLAs who make it here back too?

Wow, apparently someone doesn't understand the concept of contract. Signing a contract and neglecting to meet it isn't like quitting your job.

It's not ,eh?
You can't just sit at home and not report to training camp?
You can't go play in Sweden until it get renegotiated?
You can't just show up, and not perform until the other side rips it up?

It's a JOB. A public sector job. You guys gonna demand the head of a Postie who works unpaid overtime and sucks up to the boss for violating that contract?
Or you gonna tell me how different it is cuz soldiering is all glorious, flag-wrapped patriotic bullshit? A hell of a lot already can't distinguish between AWOL desertion and desertion under fire, which are 2 different things!
The dumbest part of the whole thing is that we're accepting politicizing the subject when the Armed Forces mainly just gives a dishonorable discharge and quietly moves these people out as they don't want them infecting the gung-ho types anyway. Repeat: It's a JOB and any sane employer knows you don't keep people around who don't want to be there.

No, this contract is a legal contract. Meaning if you sign a contract saying you will do something and don't do it, you can go to jail. Dumbass.

[Scape]

Not only that but the entire bit about leaving the country only exacerbates the problem. True, had they faced the music at home they might have been given the choice of redeployment or jail but the jail would have been minimal compared to what they will get now when they are returned (and they will be). They only made the situation worse, not better for themselves and they can try to paint the situation with it being a horrible war crime and the war is bad but if that truly was the case (and I am not saying otherwise) then they would have had a valid claim to present to either the US authorities or to Canada. The fact is they didn't do that and for all the vets that have legitimate grievances vs the US military these assholes have made their plight just that much harder. That is the reason above all that this really stings here and why they must be shipped back now to right their wrong for the others who are trying to go about getting conscientious objector status legitimately.

[uwish]

wars suck, bad things happen for many different reasons. It changes peoples, some can cope, some can not. But I will not agree that those who CHOSE to join a volunteer army have the right to pick and choose which fight they feel like being involved in.

You singed the dotted line and just because it was 'at peace' time, you are made WELL aware that it could change ANY second.

I have no sympathy nor support for anyone who openly deserts his post or goes AWOL for morale reasons. Send him back as a deserter and let the US military code of justice deal with them.

And if anyone really wants to know why Officers carry pistol on the battlefield during WW1, WW2 and even today it is for one PRIMARY reason, to shoot deserters.

Unfortunately in today's politically correct media and social engineering, people think it they can forget about their responsibilities or foster this continuous environment of blaming others for their own actions.

Enough already

[hurley_108]

Scape wrote:

Not only that but the entire bit about leaving the country only exacerbates the problem. True, had they faced the music at home they might have been given the choice of redeployment or jail but the jail would have been minimal compared to what they will get now when they are returned (and they will be). They only made the situation worse, not better for themselves and they can try to paint the situation with it being a horrible war crime and the war is bad but if that truly was the case (and I am not saying otherwise) then they would have had a valid claim to present to either the US authorities or to Canada. The fact is they didn't do that and for all the vets that have legitimate grievances vs the US military these assholes have made their plight just that much harder. That is the reason above all that this really stings here and why they must be shipped back now to right their wrong for the others who are trying to go about getting conscientious objector status legitimately.

Nice link. I didn't know much about CO status, and that link did have a lot of good info. Particularly pertinent is the Gillette case an selective objection. It's not so much that it's a volunteer army and you have to do what you're told no matter what after you swear the oath / sign on teh dotted line - it's wheter or not you have a sincere objection to all war. Is that right?

It seems clear to me that these people should have stayed behind, tried for CO status, and faced the music. If they have a good case, they'll win. If they don't, they go to the brig. As long as they won't get the death penalty, I have no problem with sending them back.