US soldier avoiding Iraq ordered to leave Canada, page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 10:31 AM by Blue_Jay33

Today's soldiers are more educated than any in history, if they are going to give their blood and guts and even their life for "King & Country" it better be in the actual defense of the country.

Not off somewhere chasing down a bogus lie, that is really empire building.

It's such a double standard too, we (the west) convicted Nazi's for just following orders after WWII, yet when American soldiers take a stand against orders AFTER being in Iraq, we condemn them too. Modern civilized society can't have it both ways.

I say let this woman raise her family she paid her dues already. If the American military wants to make an example of her, then they are a bunch of fools, as this will just scare people, especially women away from joining in the first place.

reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 11:28 AM by Cynic

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by riff_raff

"I demand that Canada accepts, without reservation, any whiny, cowardly, traitorous, US citizen that voluntarily (and deceitfully) takes the oath to honorably serve in a branch of the US military, but then later backs out when asked to actually fulfill that oath."

So do I.

It is the least we can to for those poor Iraqis.

OK, I agree with you. There is plenty of room on Baffin Island. They can build themselves a new life free from persecution. Bad luck about the polar bears however. Punt her outta here now, the sooner the better. The husband and kiddies too. Our welfare system is already strained and her contributions have been minimal to it.

reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 12:43 PM by MasterRegal

reply to post by desertdreamer

She should be deported. She signed a contract, knowing that she may be called for duty. This is an all volunteer military. It is not like there was a draft. It baffles me that people think they could run away from the duty the willingly signed up for. It is absolutely ridiculous.

reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 07:16 PM by Midav

reply to post by pstrron

Thank you and believe that you were in the AF. My brother in law was in SAC as well until ACC was formed in the early 90's

I was an Army brat myself and then lived much of my life in Europe as a civilian. Even worked for the Stars & Stripes for a few years. Too bad I didn't pass the physical otherwise would have loved to get stationed to Europe.

This soldier, unlike many previous generations, did have a choice. I doubt she had to see the actual hardships that went on in such places as Fallujah. As some of my friends that have been there say, she was probably an REMF (rear echelon mother f***). Going to war was probably not something she cared to see again and decided to opt out.

Just guessing on my part. Has she said anything on why she didn't want to go back? I'm curious to know what her opinion is.

On the Colin Powell issue, forgive me that I can't find an article, but the man already opted to not stay for the whole eight years early on in the Bush admin... before we went into Iraq. I believe it was because of family reasons. If I can find something I'll post it. He even rejected a position in the Obama admin. Possibly same reason.

About the US being hated... Many people don't like Americans because it is something that is passed on generation to generation. I lived overseas for 20 years of my life. I can tell you many stories dating back from the late 70's until 1998 on encounters I faced just being an American. That Americans have been hated only recently is a lie. I have been there and have the experience.

No, not saying my entire experience was bad. I loved living in Europe but there were, indeed, some bad moments.

On Saddam... many eastern Europeans that I met, Romanians in particular, had nothing good to say about him. Many commented on why we didn't finish the man off in 1991. They had lived under similar circumstances and knew the type of human being the man was.

I support Saddam being gone. I support the war. I may not be able to go but unlike many chicken-hawks, I did try to enlist.

I understand we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have friends that are on both sides of the spectrum and regardless of opinion, I still consider them friends!!

Mrs. Rivera joined during a time of war and knew all to well she could get shipped to a war zone. I am certain she was up to date on the news before volunteering to join the US Army.

She had a choice and now must live up to the consequences.

Just my humble opinion

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 03:06 AM by Exuberant1

reply to post by Midav

"She had a choice and now must live up to the consequences. "

Yeah, she also swore an oath too:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution... "

That is precisely what she is doing by refusing to fight in an Undeclared War of Aggression (Nuremberg, 1949) based upon False Pretenses (WMD's) which is not legal or Constitutional by any stretch of your imagination.

Furthermore, any Oath to Support and Uphold the Constitution demands one refuse any such order - Especially when it from a Commander in Chief who Doesn't obey the Constitution and who has authorized torture of men women and children(Google: John Yoo torture Memo).

(In case you've already forgot forgot, She already participated in the US War Crimes against the Iraqi People for One Tour where she fought in an
Undeclared War of Aggression based on False Pretenses)

*I admire her bravery. She is more brave than I ever was.

I served when I was drafted and participated in US War Crimes against the People of Vietnam - I wish I hadn't. I wish I had her Courage when I was younger...

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:03 AM by desertdreamer

reply to post by lmbsc

Nice find on that other article!

The original article acted like she had already served one tour of duty and did not wish to return for a second. After reading the second article it does appear that she bailed out after only 3 months.

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:14 AM by Exuberant1

reply to post by desertdreamer

"After reading the second article it does appear that she bailed out after only 3 months. "

3 months of participation in an Undeclared War of Aggression (Nuremberg, 1949) based upon False Pretenses (WMD's) which is not legal or Constitutional is 3 months too many.

Do you still believe in Iraq's WMD's?

Do you actually believe that Congress issued a Declaration of War on Iraq?

Do you really think that this was not an illegal war of Aggression?

Do you actually believe that America doesn't torture people?

Do you really think the Patriot Act and John Yoo Torture memo are Constitutional or even legal?

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:20 AM by vigusa

Originally posted by desertdreamer

US soldier avoiding Iraq ordered to leave Canada

www.lasvegassun.com

The first woman soldier to flee the U.S. military for Canada to avoid the Iraq war said Wednesday that Canadian authorities have ordered that she be deported this month along with her husband and their children.

Kimberly Rivera said her requests to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds were rejected. The family must leave Canada by Jan. 27 unless the order is reversed.

Rivera, a private first class in the Army based at Fort Carson, Colo., served in Iraq in 2006 and came to Canada the following year after she was ordered to serve another tour there. She could be court-martialed when she returns to the U.S. and could face up to five years in prison.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.iht.com
www.abqtrib.com

Hoyas .

I think that she just don't want to fight an illegal war...

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:34 AM by desertdreamer

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by desertdreamer

"After reading the second article it does appear that she bailed out after only 3 months. "

3 months of participation in an Undeclared War of Aggression (Nuremberg, 1949) based upon False Pretenses (WMD's) which is not legal or Constitutional is 3 months too many.

Do you still believe in Iraq's WMD's?

Do you actually believe that Congress issued a Declaration of War on Iraq?

Do you really think that this was not an illegal war of Aggression?

Do you actually believe that America doesn't torture people?

Do you really think the Patriot Act and John Yoo Torture memo are Constitutional or even legal?

1. No I do not believe that there were WMD's in Iraq, I believe now, looking at all the facts, that we went in too soon.

2. As far as the declaration of war...I do not believe that there was an actual declaration of war, but I did find this

Here

3. I think that this was a war where we jumped the gun, the continuation of it could be called illegal, depends on where you stand.

4. I believe that American intelligence DOES torture people.

5. I think that the Patriot act has broad reaching powers that the government really does not need, because they cannot be trusted to use those powers in the correct and proper manner.

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 08:21 AM by desertdreamer

Something else I find interesting. It seems she was trying to become a WO in the military, but did not have the ASVAB scores. I wonder if she would have become a WO if she would have been making the same decisions that she has made now. Do you think that she just did not get the position she was looking for, and decided that sitting at a gate was not worth her life? Rgardless if she signed a contract or not, I am just wondering what the concensus is?

The question: Did the position that she did not qualify for influence her decision to go AWOL, or do you feel that she truly just feels like her "number is up"?

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 09:16 AM by Midav

reply to post by Exuberant1

Are those your words? Or her words?

I'd like to know what Mrs. Rivera's opinion on the matter is. Until then, we're all just putting words into her mouth

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Midav]

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 09:18 AM by Midav

edit: never mind.....

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 06:34 AM by desertdreamer

I found this, and it relates to this discussion.

The Pentagon soon will begin paying monthly bonuses of up to $500 to troops barred from leaving the military because they're needed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A fatter paycheck will take some of the sting out of the military's high demand for troops and the resulting stop-loss policy.

Here is the source of the information.

Article

I guess $500 does not seem like alot when you are risking your neck, but it is something.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by desertdreamer]

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 03:55 PM by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Today's soldiers are more educated than any in history, if they are going to give their blood and guts and even their life for "King & Country" it better be in the actual defense of the country.

Not off somewhere chasing down a bogus lie, that is really empire building.

It's such a double standard too, we (the west) convicted Nazi's for just following orders after WWII, yet when American soldiers take a stand against orders AFTER being in Iraq, we condemn them too. Modern civilized society can't have it both ways.

I say let this woman raise her family she paid her dues already. If the American military wants to make an example of her, then they are a bunch of fools, as this will just scare people, especially women away from joining in the first place.

Deploying to Iraq is in no way analogous to Nazis who were convicted of war crimes, with regards to the following orders statement.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:04 PM by saint4God

Originally posted by desertdreamer
I guess $500 does not seem like alot when you are risking your neck, but it is something.

The backlash is the serving would be for the money instead of for the country. I don't believe our troops are paid enough salary for what they're asked to do. It may be better to have a risk-assessment of each position. Stationed in Hawaii (as my friend in the Navy was stationed) wouldn't be high risk, high pay as opposed to an army garrison unit in Afghanistan. This is just how I see a possible solution.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:12 PM by SFwife

People with Special Jobs get Special pays BUT Its still not much compared to what they should be paid .
Some one who never leaves the FOB NEVER sees Iraq and is safe for the most part doesn't deserve the same pay as a man living out in the middle of no where or climbing mountains ,Going without proper drinking water or even a shower ,AND actively chasing down terrorist . Not every job in the Military is the same .
Not every job is dangerous and carrying the same risk .

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:46 PM by dooper

She signed up. She has an obligation. Just like other obligations you sign, you follow through, or you pay the consequences.

On the other hand, I don't want to serve alongside someone who doesn't want to be there, as I can't count on them to do their job. And in a combat zone, everyone pulls together, or someone has to take up their slack.

Let her go, rescind her citizenship, and make sure she is banned from the country.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 08:01 PM by IndigoGypsy

Suppose you, in good faith as a U.S. patriot, courageously offered to put your life on the line and signed up for the military under the assumption that you would be doing so in the event the U.S. faced an enemy who posed a valid threat to its citizens' safety and overall freedom. Then suppose you were deployed to a dangerous country, whose enemy is willing to blow themselves up at any given moment if it means they have the opportunity to take you out with them. Then suppose you find out your president and his friends dreamed up this whole concept, which ultimately benefits no one but them, and you realize you are essentially no more to your country's leaders than collateral damage. In addition to that, you, as potential collateral damage, are expected to endure the mental anguish that will ultimately play itself out in the aftermath of your having to take the lives of people you've never met, who, until now, would have never had a reason to ever cross paths with had it not been for the big lie told by your own government. That is the United States and that is what it can do for its citizens.

The audacity of some to pull the "they new what they were signing up for when they enlisted" b.s. in this scenario. I'm quite sure none of these soldiers signed up for something like this. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of these people should have gone and strapped a gun on and carried out their own dirty work if war was what they wanted. That I would have liked to see. Don't send our young people to do it for you, cowards, then try to prosecute them when they refuse to keep doing it.

AWOL is justified in this case as far as I'm concerned.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:05 AM by Midav

reply to post by IndigoGypsy

Once again, I ask the question:

Are those Mrs Rivera's words? Or those of an ATS poster?

What are her words and opinion?

The volunteer enlistnment bs scenario opinion that you stated is moot in itself. Why? Did the woman not even bother to follow the news?

If she were drafted I could see her point of view. That is not the case here. She knew what she was getting herself into. We had already been in Iraq for more than a couple of years and we all watched the same news.