US soldier avoiding Iraq ordered to leave Canada

Midav:

To answer your question as it pertains to my post, I'm speaking on behalf of no one but myself. When I say AWOL is justified in this case, I'm speaking about this war in general. I don't know what is going through this particular soldier's mind. And in whatever one could consider to be a "normal" wartime situation, I agree that when one signs up to serve his country, he has to fulfill his obligation. However, the circumstances surrounding this war can be described as nothing less than criminal by our government. The fact that Bush and the others are not facing criminal prosecution for this by now is unbelievable.

Please do not make me laugh with comments to imply this soldier new what she was getting into based on the fact she "watched the same news programs we did." How absurd. The "news programs" helped to perpetuate the lie. Had they been reporting facts, whether they failed to because they didn't know the truth or whether it was because they were manipulating it, then maybe soldiers wouldn't have a gripe if they enlisted while it was taking place and now don't want to go back. However, our soldiers have been sacrificed for too long already. I refuse to believe that there are not a great number of them over there that haven't figured out they've been put in harms way for no good reason, and that dying there will not have ensured our freedoms here. We have not been free for a long time. It's not only unfair, it's inhumane to expect our soldiers to endure this situation any longer than they have to.

reply to post by zysin5

---

I know what you're saying, and completely agree that we're being told we're all slaves. Note what I'm saying. I'm not a conformist, nor do I care about their military contracts. I weight a contract and someones right to freedom and renig on it and the freedom wins. What I mean, is I don't live in fear. The only way we can change anything is to stand up for what is right and mean it, and not back down. I don't back down. They'd have to shoot me, but they haven't won, because at no point will they ever have my YES to this system.

The only reason it is the way you described, and realistically we all know how it is, is because people accept it. I don't. The only way to get our power back is to take stands on issues with our full integrity and what we believe on the line, because what we stand for is what we hand to our children.

Contracts that involve someones life are invalid to me anyway. These kinds of contracts, without someone changing their minds, have no right to exist. We had a draft dodger who lived in our pickers cabin for years. My parents sent the police, who were not allowed to be operating as agents for the US, away every time they showed up.

He was one of the first people pardoned publically on television in the US with regards to Vietnam. He was a mystic, a meditatior, a hippy, an astrologer, not a killer. We all loved him for the peacenik he was.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by mystiq]

I'm not sure that sets a right example. Basically this says if you make it across the boarder, it doesn't matter what you've promised to who. I can see some corporate CEO's taking big advantage of this principle as well. "Thanks for the money, I'm off!"

reply to post by IndigoGypsy

---

The truth is that the war in Iraq is neither illegal nor criminal. Opposition to the war doesn't magically impart these qualities to it. There simply is no convening legal body with the authority do make such a conclusion. The US Legislative and Judicial Branches certainly haven't come to this conclusion.

In a nutshell-

At the conclusion of Desert Storm, the ceasefire agreement had very specific requirements/responsibilities for Iraq/Saddam, which if violated could result in renewed hostilities. The UN security council unanimously voted saying that if Saddam failed to cooperate with Inspectors, and provide conclusive proof that all WMDs had been destroyed, that action would be taken. The US Congress voted and gave President Bush authority to take action if Saddam ignored the deadline that was given.
Who else's permission do you feel we needed?

reply to post by mystiq

---

Some people feel that having honor and integrity means doing what you say, and honoring commitments, not just when they suit you. I happen to hold this opinion. If one's word is no good, then I have no use for them.

reply to post by IndigoGypsy

---

Firstly, thank you! I appreciate it when you say that you speak of your own behalf.

Any war can be seen as criminal from ones own perspective. In the end, the victor writes the history. People have gone AWOL from every and any war because of differences in how they perceived it.

This woman was fortunate enough to have more news sources, even if you do laugh, which is your right than any other conflict in history. I am certain she had everything available to her from CNN to Pravda to Al-Jazeera, to ATS, to the NY Times to the J-post to people that have been there to to to...

If she did not inform herself before joining the Armed Forces during a time of conflict, shame on her. The allegations that some feel the war is illegal have been around since 2003.

My personal belief, not written in stone, is that this woman got cold feet and didn't want to go back. Again, something that goes back to the dawn of time of warfare. You know, I might do it. I don't know. I'd maybe convince myself that what I am doing is illegal to make myself feel better after I ran away.

I don't know.

I remember during the 1991 gulf war when some soldiers went AWOL. They were in for the college money. But, when it came time to go to war, they were gone. Even then some claimed the war was illegal and only for oil.

That is something that will never go away.

My opinion.

reply to post by Midav

---

What a load of bull Mr. wordsmith!!
you will say anything to wrap a story around your point.

You could have stopped with the first sentence above - you think she's a coward and left it with that. Why all the other stuff? You are not going to convince anyone to change their opinion.
You are wrong on this for all the reasons that have already been stated by the aware ones. No point repeating.
But I am sure you will repeat your end of it.

reply to post by wayno

---

Because you said so, you must be right!

Good debate and thanks for clearing me up. You are getting a star!! No need to thank me, I'm modest

AMEN
PPL is this country have the right to be fools b.c of the ones who bleed
Anti war nuts and Libs seem to over look that little detail

[edit on 13-1-2009 by SFwife]

In some situations I would say send her back to the US and let her serve some time I jail. In this situation she already went over there once. In my honest opinion I believe that multiple mandatory deployments are destroying our military. We are hurting for boots on the ground. The standards to join the military have been lowered and basic training is just pushing people through not giving them a reason to quit. If you guys didn't know, when you are in basic it's somewhat easy to get out of the military but it gets harder when you get to your next unit.

Year long deployments are taking huge tolls on family's. Sometimes it's hard for a child to understand just how long their parents are going to be away for. I seriously don't think the military is going to be too harsh in this situation. I could see a reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge.

do you know this from personal experience ?

Bingo! That truth always seems to escape the anti-war crowd! This soldier swore an oath, made a commitment and signed a contract. She is a deserter during a time of war and I for one appreciate the Canadians not protecting her from criminal charges.

reply to post by SFwife

---

Yeah

I just think that you can join the army and you don't know completely what kind of sacrifices your going to have to make. Then she served, and knowing that I couldn't blame her for putting her family first.

The Army is better off without her and anyone else who feels that way

Well, with you being a SF wife I can't argue with that. From my personal experience she might spend a little time in jail and then get discharged. If she didn't receive any punishment that would be a bad trend to set. I am on IRR and I don't want to go back but if I got called in I would have to. It's my duty. I want to finish college first, then I will think about going back in.

reply to post by SFwife

---

I would agree with your statement in so much as it applies to the sacrifices of men and women in WW2. What they did directly affected the life I live today.
Just how, exactly, does what is going on in Iraq have anything at all to do with my well being? I see it enraging a whole section of the world against us. I see it creating enemies that weren't there before. So far no benefit whatsoever for the blood being spilled.
Please educate me. I am apparently one of those fools you talk about.

So I found this as well, and I am curious as to what you guys think of this type of recruiting tactic, please check it out.

Questionable Recruiting Practices?

I believe that it is this type of recruiting that attracts the younger crowds (cbviously that is what they want), but also the ones that don't have any clue as to what they are getting into.

I was promised that if I joined the Navy's Delayed Entry program I'd get an ROTC scholarship to go to college since I just missed the qualifications for the Naval Academy. I joined the Delayed Entry program at age 17 and applied for the scholarship as my recruiter said. I was denied the scholarship. When I brought the denial letter to my recruiter (and high school councellor who said all this was a good idea to go to college) he said, "What? I...I don't understand it. No problem, after you finish bootcamp you can apply for Officer Candidate School." I said "no deal, I'm not going". He said, "But you signed the agreement for the Delayed Entry Program" and I said, "I'm not of legal age yet, I cannot be bound by the terms of the contract." Then of course his rehearsed retort, "your parents cosigned". I said "Great! Take them. My dad was in the Navy before, I'm sure he hasn't forgotten much since he got out." That was the end of the discussion and though I got follow-up recruiting calls for months after, they knew there was nothing that could be done. I'm just glad I knew my legal rights before signing anything and learned if it was not in print then the recruiter has no obligation (moral or legal) to deliver on a promise. Whether military or business, if you cannot trust someone on their word once, then it's very likely they'll violate your trust repeatedly.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by saint4God]

Exactly, those are the kinds of tactics that are used. It does not happen to everyone, but it does go on.