CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:08 pm
 


$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.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 2424
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:24 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11108
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:35 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:06 pm
 


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.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 2424
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:10 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:26 pm
 


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.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 2424
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:33 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 34594
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:46 pm
 


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. 8O


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5321
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:54 pm
 


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'.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 2:14 pm
 


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. 8O



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.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1211
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:57 pm
 


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.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1211
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:59 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15102
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:22 pm
 


djakeydd djakeydd:
Waaaayyy to go harp , you little fascist you.

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





PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 am
 


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.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5321
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:29 am
 


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.

Image

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.... :roll:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.