It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Soldiers Flee to Canada to Avoid Service in Iraq

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
3) Staying and fighting a war, and staying and fighting injustice in your own country take a certain amount of heat, which some are not able to give because they might not have the endurance to weather either of those storms.


Then they should not have taken the Oath. An Oath is an Oath. Not ONE man has been drafted into this army they volunteered



Don't be so hasty to label others as cowards, because that is a stronger word than its usage might tell.


What else would you call some afraid to do the job they VOLUNTEERED to do? I intended it to be a strong word as most seem to think its OK to deny your oaths and cut and run when the mood strikes. If the average person runs to another country it doesn't matter but dint call it patriotism, call it what it is, SAVING YOUR ASS, which as a citizen is your right. A right you give up when you enlist, I might add.

My words stand




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Damned
It's kind of like the movie "Casualties Of War." If your squad starts raping and killing people for no reason, there's a problem.


OK you are right on this one.

So lets see what did the hero do?

1. Run crying to another country?

2.Stay and fulfill his oath AND bring those actions to light?

He was man enough to stop the actions and answer the consequences for his actions.

Why?

Because he wasn't a lying Coward using whatever excuse he could come up with to cover his cowardince.

IF he really didnt believe in the way things were being done he would take steps to correct them not run and hide behind his mamas skirts


The hero had principles, and if he thought that the war they were sending him to was not justified, he wouldn't have gone in the first place. The point is, some people don't sell out on their principles. However, the military is full of people who do. I don't respect anyone who can sell out on their own principles so easily.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

4) As a proud American, I am moreover a proud father and would abandon my country in lieu of my family’s safety if push came to shove.


For the record I might too depending on the circumstances BUT I am not UNDER OATH TO FIGHT, neither is my family. But on the other hand this is MY COUNTRY and IMO its worth fighting for.

Lets not make this more complicated than it is. Its simply people breaking their Oaths to their country. As a privite citizen I am not expected to run into a burning house to save others but as a firefighter I would be.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
You seem to place alot of worth on that oath. To me, any oath I'm forced to say is no more than a formality. And yes, they're forced to say it if they want to join the services, are they not? So, you'll always have a good percentage of people who think of it as nothing more than a formality. Oaths don't mean #, IMO. It's kind of like christian values. They don't mean # either.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned
You seem to place alot of worth on that oath. To me, any oath I'm forced to say is no more than a formality. And yes, they're forced to say it if they want to join the services, are they not?


does the fact that they FREELY join mean anything? How can you force anyone to FREELY join something?



Oaths don't mean #, IMO.


Then you are a liar too.

How can you judge our leaders for breaking their Oaths to us if YOURS means nothing.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Like I said, it's a formality. I don't judge our leaders by whether they break an oath or not. I judge them by their performance and their judgment.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned
Like I said, it's a formality. I don't judge our leaders by whether they break an oath or not. I judge them by their performance and their judgment.


In the case of a soldier, it is NOT a formality. In addition to the verbal oath that they give, they also sign a legally binding document that lays out the services that they are expected to perform.



[edit on 12/1/05 by COOL HAND]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned
Like I said, it's a formality. I don't judge our leaders by whether they break an oath or not. I judge them by their performance and their judgment.


Thats a joke right? Isnt an Oath a promise? And what if your leader made an oath to its people and broke that oath? What if that oath was to be honest and truthfull?

Main Entry: oath
Function: noun
1 : a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words or the sincerity of one's intentions; specifically : one accompanied by calling upon a deity as a witness
2 : a promise (as to perform official duties faithfully) corroborated by an oath —compare PERJURY—under oath : under a solemn and esp. legal obligation to tell the truth (as when testifying)

So, you do not judge your leaders based on oaths they have made in regards to thier posts?

Man thats really an odd belief of yours.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
let me "graphically" show you what is going on with american soldiers in middle east.
they are the ones standing there, not the u.s. leaders and generals.



so why stand there, while being slaughtered?

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thats a joke right? Isnt an Oath a promise? And what if your leader made an oath to its people and broke that oath?

Are you really that naive? They break their oaths all the time.

Bush has broken his oath time and time again, by passing bills that directly conflict with the Constitution. So have many congressmen. That oath means nothing to them. They still pervert and warp the Constitution in such a way that allows them to bypass or nullify amendments.

Many soldiers are christians, who think murder will get them a life sentence in hell, yet that doesn't mean anything to them either. Do you think that, if their religion doesn't mean #, that silly little oath means a thing?


Give me a break!


[edit on 12-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned
Like I said, it's a formality. I don't judge our leaders by whether they break an oath or not. I judge them by their performance and their judgment.


I quote you again.

You judge them by thier performance and judgment?

If and oath is a promise and you dont care if oaths are broken, how can you measure thier judgment?

So you are basically saying that your leaders can lie to you through broken and empty promises and thats ok with you?

Its sad when the HIGHEST commitment a man can make is not a quality you see in a leader.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
You judge them by thier performance and judgment?

Yes, I do. I've known for a long time that what politicians may say and what they may do are two completely different things.


If and oath is a promise and you dont care if oaths are broken, how can you measure thier judgment?

See statement above.


So you are basically saying that your leaders can lie to you through broken and empty promises and thats ok with you?

Not at all. I'm saying that I've come to expect them to lie, cheat, and steal. It's what they do.


Its sad when the HIGHEST commitment a man can make is not a quality you see in a leader.

Yes, it is. You're right. It's also sad when people hold corrupt leaders in an esteem that they don't deserve. When an oath is associated with this type of corrupt leadership, it means even less, to me.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Souljah, I must say, the graphic you portrayed is a pretty accurate representation of the vicious circle of violence in the mideast.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Then they should not have taken the Oath. An Oath is an Oath. Not ONE man has been drafted into this army they volunteered

What else would you call some afraid to do the job they VOLUNTEERED to do? I intended it to be a strong word as most seem to think its OK to deny your oaths and cut and run when the mood strikes. If the average person runs to another country it doesn't matter but dint call it patriotism, call it what it is, SAVING YOUR ASS, which as a citizen is your right. A right you give up when you enlist, I might add.

My words stand



Of course, and I took the oath and know what it means. But we do need to look at the reality of the situation.

If you took the oath and truthfully believe that the government is mistaken in it's actions, then they should stay and fight it.

Fact remains that you will lose because the federal government answers to no one, including the people. You of all people should know that the federal government is nothing to hold any allegence to.

Again though, I am not defending their actions in any way, only wanting to shed a bit of humanity through here, and a bit of realism.

The climate in the country today is fairly combative still, so it stands to reason that a good portion of them have been influenced by the nonsense being spewed out.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If you took the oath and truthfully believe that the government is mistaken in it's actions, then they should stay and fight it.

Fact remains that you will lose because the federal government answers to no one, including the people. You of all people should know that the federal government is nothing to hold any allegence to.


We are losing our home.

If we run we give it away.

I am not defending the Government, far from it, I think we might be passing the point of no return myself. I hope I am wrong.

But this country will not remain free if those that disagree run.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Correct, we ARE losing our homes.

This is stemming mainly from our global-mindedness and our domestic ineptitude.

We are unable to tackle the federal government. They are unwilling to talk very much about domestic issues. Corporations have more sway than the people in day to day legislation.

What's the result?

A country facing outward around a crumbling infrastructure.

The only way things will change in something drastic, and if the people do not end up on the controling end of the stick, the government will. So ends our little experiment.

So again, who cares if they leave. Legal repercussions will follow, but the source of the problem has been addressed very little.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I agree, KrazyJethro. This gov't is a runaway train, and no one wants to jump out in front of it, for fear of the repercussions. Sure, you can be a hero if you want, and give it your best shot, but chances are you'll just be mowed down, and the train won't even falter. Oh well, it was a nice run, eh? But Thomas Jefferson was right.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Of course, and I took the oath and know what it means. But we do need to look at the reality of the situation.

If you took the oath and truthfully believe that the government is mistaken in it's actions, then they should stay and fight it.

This is the key point that cannot be disputed. Have your change of heart. Break you oaths. But stand up and accept what the justice system decides are the consequences you will face.

To jump borders makes you a coward, IMO.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Amuk
you are OUT OF LINE

Then you are a liar too.


As MOD you are VERY out of line.

Oaths? How about the ATS TOS?

What is an oath anyway? It is a verbal promise or agreement.

The DESERTERS left for whatever their own reasons are. Are they cowards? jsobecky, Amuk and some others seem to think so. I don't. We disagree. I'll explain my reasons below.

Janus likens the DESERTERS to D-Day soldiers. I think him wrong as I also will explain further below.

    What is a coward? I don't really know. If it is knowing fear, then I am guilty. If it is giving in to fear, then I am guilty. If it is avoiding harm, then I also am guilty.

    What is bravery? That action of acting past or beside fear. Every heroic person I have ever known was only heroic when they were fearful. Doing something without fear certainly doesn't make someone heroic.

Sgt. York (American WW I) was the epitome of classic heroism to me. He was fearful and went ahead anyway. So too was Audie Murphy but for different reasons. York was a conscientiously objector and fought for the highest of reasons- to save his fellows. I'm not sure he was fearful or not at that moment. Murphy was terrified and went on to save his fellows- this is what makes him heroic.

I suspect most firefighters are heroic.

If two people perform the same act, one can be heroic and the other not. The heroic one acts in spite of fear.

Comparing modern day (2004/05) American soldiers to D-Day soldiers I believe is counterproductive. The D-Day troops (for the most part) felt they were part of a task much needed to be done. They believed in large part that they were turning back evil.

Present day American deserters are for the most part hired mercenaries. They were employed for a job. The job took on tasks they became unwilling to accept. No person should be expected to perform any job against their conscience. This is what happens to many of these people. A crises of conscience, or of overwhelming fear, or perhaps of disillusionment or disgust. These things depend on the individual.

Where or when does patriotism enter the equation?

A father of two small children, wife expecting another, asks his C.O. (commanding officer) to not extend him until after his wife gives birth because she has no family or friends that can help her.

The C.O. Refuses.

The man has already completed HIS original commitment and agreement.

His wife will suffer mental anguish at the very least, she may miscarry or die.

His unit will do whatever the unit was going to do with or without him.

Who does he owe the highest duty to?

You Vets- don't beat your chest, think of what you might do.

.

.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
"At that point a light went off in my head. I was told in basic training that if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it. I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do.''


no, this is 100% true. im not even gonna touch on the immoral, just the illegal. The country of iraq was invaded primarily on the 2 principals that

a. iraq was harboring WMD
b. iraq was directly involved in terror plots against the usa, and the wmd's were for said purpose.

the non existance of wmd in itself justifies his course of action according to his training. it does not give him the right to desert the armed forces but then as stated in an earlier post he would be unjustly tried.

fraud (frôd)
n.

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
1. One that defrauds; a cheat.
2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

the lack of wmd and lack of attacks on our soil proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the invasion of iraq was fraudulant. the only arguement that could be made is that bush honnestly thought there were wmd, but once they were discovered not to exist that whole arguement is lost.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join