US soldier avoiding Iraq ordered to leave Canada

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

---

I would reword that from "Canada" to "Harper". Parliament actually voted for her to stay but the PM is the "suckup" who chose to ignore it.
I as a Canadian was happy when Canada allowed the Vietnam war dodgers to come here because that was a bad war.
I feel the same about the Iraq war. It, as everyone knows, is also a wrong war and we should accept anyone who is attempting to avoid participating in it.
I am ashamed that our government has allowed this to happen where people will be sent back to be punished for not following the US government's evil agenda.
Shame on us.

-it's not up to an individual soldier to determine whether they support the foreign policy of their government, or like a particular war. So long as in conducting that war, they are doing so in a lawful manner(in accordance with the Law of Land Warfare/Geneva & Hague conventions), it is their duty to go where they're told to.

-I can't believe you're using examples of individuals within an organization, that have behave reprehensibly as an example of typical behavior of that organization. That would be akin to saying all blacks, jews, asians, arabs, women, gays, etc... do/think/are/can't..........(fill in the blank).

-how is the Government breaking the terms of the contract, which the soldier agrees to obey the orders of the President and Officers above them?



By what standard would you deem the war illegal(you're certainly entitled to your opinion about whether or not they're wrong)? The USA is a sovereign nation right? This means that it doesn't require permission from other governments or organizations, before something is allowed or legal.
The President is the Commander in Chief of the US military, and is legally allowed to use the military. The US Congress hasn't deemed either war illegal. Military lawyers haven't deemed the war illegal. If the soldier still feels the war is morally wrong, and can't participate in good conscience, then they have to understand that there are consequences. They need to have the integrity to face those consequences, as no one forced them to volunteer. A military cannot function if every member can decide when they're going to fulfill their commitments. That's why there are consequences for deriliction of duty, desertion, etc...

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This is why McDonald's employees aren't asked to sign a contract. No one would do it. In the military, people are asked to sign contracts and they do. All contracts need to be taken very seriously including marriage and borrowing money.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

Someone please help me figure this out, because situationally this doesn't make sense. Let me see if I understand the details right:

1.) Person was ordered to go to a warzone.
2.) Person flees to another country to avoid going to warzone.
3.) Other country returns person to be court marshalled and go to prison...which is not a warzone.

Have I gotten this right so far? Isn't prison much safer than a warzone? Overall, I think she's getting the better end of the deal than someone actually doing as they're told and going to the warzone. Maybe someone at the warzone would like to trade her places...that way the soldier on the front could have a few years break to rest, recover, write a book, etc. while the undisciplined one serves for the obedient soldier.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

1) Canada is sucking up to no one, we are simply abiding by the law and the treaties between our two countries.

2) Vietnam was a whole different ball game - there was something called the draft in that war.

Personally I think it is pathetic that women demand to be included in all these things and as soon as the going get's tough they run for the hills.

This gal represents the text reason why so many men didn't want women in the army.

JK

I agree with the rest of your post, however:



Perhaps, but there are 202,248 women serving in the military...so that's a ratio of 1 out of 202,248. Here we're putting tootpaste in our mouths that isn't recommended by 1 out of every 4 dentists. Overall, I'm a lot more confident that women in the military are doing the right thing than the chemicals I put into my mouth every morning.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

www.time.com...

"When the Navy repair ship U.S.S. Vulcan set sail on a six-month Mediterranean cruise some weeks ago, it had to leave ten crew members behind in Norfolk. Reason: they were pregnant."

This is the usual dodge to avoid the tough going.

They're making future soldiers. Seriously though, after their leave, they'll be re-deployed. You think mothers want to leave infants behind and go to war? Interesting points from the article:



Under panel review also is sergeants' beer rights.



I agree this would be awkward. Perhaps there can be a protocol established if one isn't already.



Hoo-rah



Twelve hour shifts while pregnant? Now there's a tough soldier.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

1. I was simply showing that not all soldiers follow geneva conventions or morals.

2. I not once said that the entire military behaves like those few soldiers. Also inferring that I'm racist is quite low. However I will overlook that so no pissing contests get started.

3. The government breaks the contract by not issuing "lawful" orders. What I said before about allegations of the Iraq War being illegal, if it is proven that the war is illegal, then yes, our government defaulted on the contract by not providing "lawful" orders.

4. The standard I deem the conflict illegal is by how we went into Iraq in the first place. The questions raised on the merit of the intelligence presented as a case to go to war has been questioned and not resolved to the satisfaction of many. I merely presented an opinion stating that the legality of this war is in question. The US military was never meant to be used as a tool of aggression, which, based on plenty of info available, it has.

5. The President, Congress, and their lawyers say the war is legal. They started the war, so why would they say anything else about the legality of the war? It's very hard for the government to admit it did wrong.

Good post, this is why the gal in question here is not an insult to men or the army, she is an insult to all the hard working gals in the army who are doing a bag up job.

JK

Folks,
This is absolutely the stupidiest thing I have ever seen debated/discussed here.

She signed a contract, she failed to fulfill her contract and now she should be punished. You cannot defend that, regardless of hers (or yours) feeling about the war. That does not factor into the decision to punish her.

There are plenty of options for single parents in the military, and all single parents in the military must have someone standing by to take care of their kids if they have to deploy. The fact that she is using the whole motherhood angle is a cop-out, nothing more.

Someone please explain to me (without dragging the war or her motherhood into it) why she shouldn't be punished.

I agree, it's hard to make progress in a society when there is that one individual that exemplifies the initial doubt.

In that case, you've gotta see this other hot topic of the day: Obama Says He'll Fight to Keep His Blackberry. Also kudos to your selection of topics, I apparently find most of the absurd ones on ATS!



Kinda hard since the reason why she's dodging the war is likely due to being a mother. You're right, legally there's no excuse. Compassionately, there's reason to understand.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

Citing a source defining how aggressive the military should be during war? That's not the argument here. It's how aggressive the US should be. We shouldn't have a standing army in the first place, but there's nothing that says we can't, just that we "ought not" to. How the military wages it's war is determined by laws in place regarding Geneva, Hague, and our laws as well.

As for who Congress, the President, and anyone else answers to? Simple enough. We have a document called the Supreme Law of the Land. Also known as the US Constitution. It defines what our branches of government has the authority to do. This is what American government is suppose to follow. How often does it? And how often do they use it to further interests? Well those questions are subject to debate elsewhere.

The short item I wanted to point out was that, if the Iraq war didn't have a declaration of war from Congress, then the President can not wage said war. Congress only has the power to declare war. If they do not, then waging a war is illegal. Without that declaration from Congress, even if they fund the war, they are illegally providing funds to wage an illegal war, which then can be argued that being sent to an illegal war is not a lawful order, those giving said unlawful orders default on the contract.

Do you post anything other than one liners? I mean, any posts of a "meat and potato" variety?

And if this was the American Fourth Reich, we'd have way snappier uniforms that what I'm rocking today.