American Gov't Arrests Canadian

[Reaper]

Let me start things off by saying that he was apprehended because he was careless. If you're going to commit a crime in the United States and flee to another country then don't return to the United States. D'uh! When it comes to crime this is an entry level mistake. For example, despite what you may think of Roman Polanski he fled prosecution and has never returned to the United States.

Now that I have that out of the way, I think this guy should serve time if he is convicted. He didn't receive his draft card and book it for Canada. He voluntarily enlisted, went through basic training for the Marine Corps and then fled the country before deployment. This sounds like someone who did not want to honour their commitment. It's not like the Vietnam conflict was a secret in 1968. It was on the nightly news and it is safe to say that a reasonable person could assume that enlisting in the United States Armed Forces could result in their deployment to Vietnam. It's not like he was having a ball at basic training and then was shocked to hear that he was being deployed to Vietnam upon completion.

If you're gonna dance you gotta pay the piper.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

As is usually the case with yourself, you missed the point.

I merely observed the obvious, that the law designating Vietnam deserters and draft dodgers as criminals has survived a wide spectrum of political opinion - Democrat and Republican controlled administrations - for 30 years . . . . . and that is a clear indication the majority of the American people, regardless of their opinion of the unpopular Vietnam war, want it that way.

Given this lack of forgiveness in the public mind has survived a solid test of time, one should deduce that the point itself really has nothing to do with the merits of the conflict itself since Vietnam was clearly an unpopular event in American history.

Another side to this coin is that this arrest serves as a warning to possible deserters from the Iraq war.

As it should be with an all volunteer army.

Cowperson

And "As is usually the case with yourself, you missed the point".

The final answer to any moral question has to be answered by myself or yourself not by our friends, our employers, our political party, our country, our church or religion or philosophy.
The Nuremberg trials brought to light the fallacy of "just following orders" as a legal defence.

As a general rule of thumb I agree that desertion should not be encouraged but in an unjust war an individual has to follow his conscious.

So far there has been 8000 deserters from the war in Iraq and Abney "is the third marine from the Viet Nam era to be arrested this month".
http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_abney20060313.html

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

And "As is usually the case with yourself, you missed the point".

The final answer to any moral question has to be answered by myself or yourself not by our friends, our employers, our political party, our country, our church or religion or philosophy.

The "moral" questions, as I said, have been answered by the majority of the American people through 30 years via their voting for both left and right of center governments.

There is no ambiguity on this even as you continue to flounder in attempting to create one.

Most would agree with your position on the moral issue of American involvement in Vietnam - and perhaps even your position on Iraq - but obviously most Americans have disagreed and continue to disagree with your position regarding the "morality" of deserters/draft dodgers from those conflicts making individual decisions on their involvement.

In other words, as far as the majority of Americans are concerned, if you are legally enlisted in the Army and think you can make an individual decision about the morality of the Vietnam conflict, then leave the jurisdiction AND don't come back lest you face prosecution even after 30 years.

Similarly, if you want to protest the morality of Vietnam or Iraq at Berkley or the Mall in Washington, then go right ahead and scream as loud as you can.

Is that right or wrong? We all have an opinion.

"They've got 8,000 deserters from the Iraq war, those are the official numbers, and my take on it is they are trying to send a message to marines who are actually in the forces now that they will never be forgiven," he said.

Nice try but the desertion rate in the USA military since Sept. 11, 2001 has actually plummeted, the exact opposite of the point you were trying to make.

As per the statistics at the link below, there is certainly no demonstratable correlation between the politics surrounding the conflict in Iraq and what might pass for "normal" for desertions in the USA military. Of course, the Daily Leftist isn't going to tell you that.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...eserters_x.htm

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Let me start things off by saying that he was apprehended because he was careless. If you're going to commit a crime in the United States and flee to another country then don't return to the United States. D'uh! When it comes to crime this is an entry level mistake. For example, despite what you may think of Roman Polanski he fled prosecution and has never returned to the United States.

Now that I have that out of the way, I think this guy should serve time if he is convicted. He didn't receive his draft card and book it for Canada. He voluntarily enlisted, went through basic training for the Marine Corps and then fled the country before deployment. This sounds like someone who did not want to honour their commitment. It's not like the Vietnam conflict was a secret in 1968. It was on the nightly news and it is safe to say that a reasonable person could assume that enlisting in the United States Armed Forces could result in their deployment to Vietnam. It's not like he was having a ball at basic training and then was shocked to hear that he was being deployed to Vietnam upon completion.

If you're gonna dance you gotta pay the piper.

Here's a link to a story about present day deserters. Whether you agree or disagree with them you will see that each story is different and what they did was not entered into lightly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in659336.shtml

[Vulcan]

Cowperson did you follow that link in USA Today to read this "However, the Marine official in charge of bringing in deserters said after Conti's arrest that his office was being more aggressive."
Sounds to me like they are trying to send a message. To bad they weren't as aggressive when Bush showed up or didn't for duty.

The rest of your post doesn't deserve a reply.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Cowperson did you follow that link in USA Today to read this "However, the Marine official in charge of bringing in deserters said after Conti's arrest that his office was being more aggressive."
Sounds to me like they are trying to send a message. To bad they weren't as aggressive when Bush showed up or didn't for duty.

Did I say anywhere they weren't being aggressive? I would hope they would be. It's a serious matter. And I agree with you about Bush, although his situation wasn't uncommon at the time.

Obviously you're out to lunch in trying to connect desertions to the politics of Iraq. That was my point if referencing the statistics in the article.

The rest of your post doesn't deserve a reply.

No doubt. We'd just be wasting each others time.

As I said before, we may as well agree that we have mutual contempt for each other on this topic and leave it at that instead of going in circles.

You have a right to your opinion and I respect that.

Cowperson

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Here's a link to a story about present day deserters. Whether you agree or disagree with them you will see that each story is different and what they did was not entered into lightly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in659336.shtml

While every case is different and every deserter has their own reason for doing so it still seems like they are trying to take the easy way out by running away from their commitments.

If you don't agree with the war then file for concientious objector status and serve the rest of your time in a non-combat job. If the armed forces rejects your claim as a concientious objector then refuse to be deployed. Yes, you'll probably be court marshalled, face prison time or be dishonourably discharged. But you won't have to go to war.

There are consequences to everyone's actions, including enlisting for military service, that people have to accept whether they like it or not. One of those consequences is that you may have to fight in a war that you don't believe in. Unfortunately, as a soldier, you don't get the right to choose to go to war. That responsibility lies with the top levels of government. So, when carrying out an order in combat the only evaluation granted to a soldier is "Does this order comply with the Geneva Convention?". If the order complies, then you have to carry it out. It is part of enlistment. You give up your right to choose and you become subordinate to higher ranking authorities.

[MarchHare]

The "moral" questions, as I said, have been answered by the majority of the American people through 30 years via their voting for both left and right of center governments.

Does that include the two terms in which the American people elected a Vietnam draft-dodger as their president?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Does that include the two terms in which the American people elected a Vietnam draft-dodger as their president?

Absolutely.

If you feel a demonstratable case has been made that GW Bush is a Vietnam draft-dodger, then you'd have to admit he's survived twice from that "moral" perspective.

If you feel there hasn't been a case made on that point, and there are many who wouldn't agree, then he's also been validated twice from that perspective.

By the way, although I'm a supporter of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I'm also on record in this forum, at the times of the elections and not a Johnny-Come-Lately, that I would have voted against GW Bush had I had that priviledge in 2000 and 2004.

Cowperson

[MarchHare]

I was talking about Clinton.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't see much difference between draft dodgers or deserters from the Viet Nam war, The guy was 19 at the time and probably didn't realize what he was getting into until almost too late. The people depending on him were war mongers, I don't see any reason to be loyal to jerks. I'd rather be loyal to myself.

What do you mean he didn't know what he was getting into? The Vietnam War was the first war we literally watched on our TV's. Everyone knew what was happening, why the hell do you think the protests happened?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

This was in the documentary "the fog of war" where McNamara goes back and reflects upon what happened.

Very good documentary. I would definitely recommend it also.

As for the whole "deserter" vs "draft dodger" argument - its a red herring. Yes he volunteered, but are you saying that he could not have had an epiphany later on? That he might have gotten more information about what he was getting into?

People change - there isn't a statute of limitations on following your conscious...

Sure, people can change. But I do make a distinction between someone agrees to something and then neglects their duty, and someone who refuses on moral ground to take on the duty to begin with.

When he enlisted, he agreed to fulfill a duty to his country. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe that fulfilling one's duty is important.

Now someone who is drafted, and resists has more sympathy in my book. Excersising one's free choice is a basic right IMO, and I certainly would not accept being drafted into a war I did not believe in.

I guess the closest analogy I can think of is someone who agrees to have a child, but then runs away from the resposibility after they find parenthood is not for them. It's totally different than if someone decides not to have children, but is forced to take one.

If this man was drafted, (which the article doesn't say), then I can sympathize with him more. Not everyone can muster the courage to say "no". But if he voluntarily signed up, then he should have refused to go to war and dealt with the consequences.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

What do you mean he didn't know what he was getting into? The Vietnam War was the first war we literally watched on our TV's. Everyone knew what was happening, why the hell do you think the protests happened?

Well I watched it on TV and a couple of friends went south, enlisted and went to Viet Nam. I was in a small way involved in the antiwar movement and even though it was on TV it took a while for people to get sick of this war. Their were lots, probably the majority [so called silent majority] who never examined what was happening. The young people had been indoctrinated in school that they were fighting against Communism and for democracy. It took some bravery to step out against the establishment in the 60's. But I guess you know all this, as you say, you were there.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Very good documentary. I would definitely recommend it also.


Sure, people can change. But I do make a distinction between someone agrees to something and then neglects their duty, and someone who refuses on moral ground to take on the duty to begin with.

When he enlisted, he agreed to fulfill a duty to his country. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe that fulfilling one's duty is important.

Now someone who is drafted, and resists has more sympathy in my book. Excersising one's free choice is a basic right IMO, and I certainly would not accept being drafted into a war I did not believe in.

I guess the closest analogy I can think of is someone who agrees to have a child, but then runs away from the resposibility after they find parenthood is not for them. It's totally different than if someone decides not to have children, but is forced to take one.

If this man was drafted, (which the article doesn't say), then I can sympathize with him more. Not everyone can muster the courage to say "no". But if he voluntarily signed up, then he should have refused to go to war and dealt with the consequences.

Well it was more like he agrees to have a child and finds out it's not his. They were lying, now what?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well I watched it on TV and a couple of friends went south, enlisted and went to Viet Nam. I was in a small way involved in the antiwar movement and even though it was on TV it took a while for people to get sick of this war. Their were lots, probably the majority [so called silent majority] who never examined what was happening. The young people had been indoctrinated in school that they were fighting against Communism and for democracy. It took some bravery to step out against the establishment in the 60's. But I guess you know all this, as you say, you were there.

No I wasn't there. But I have two uncles that fought in the Vietnam War. Both were enlisted and while both hated the war for all it was worth, they still fought and did their duty. One of them never made it back but we still honor his sacrifice.

And they both knew what they were getting into when they enlisted. Even if the Vietnam War hadnt happened yet, when one enlists into the military death and destruction should always be expected. I have no sympathy for someone who enlisted and then ran like and chicken ****. Regardless of the circumstances.

And people knew about the Vietnam War, regardless of their political stance, everyone knows what happens in war. People die and when one serves he should expect to die as well. This man is no exception. Besides for the fact that he got scared and felt no responsibility at all towards doing his duty, one that he volunteered for.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well it was more like he agrees to have a child and finds out it's not his. They were lying, now what?

You're making up a situation which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're making up a situation which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I was answering Flames Addiction, who made up the situation.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

No I wasn't there. But I have two uncles that fought in the Vietnam War. Both were enlisted and while both hated the war for all it was worth, they still fought and did their duty. One of them never made it back but we still honor his sacrifice.

And they both knew what they were getting into when they enlisted. Even if the Vietnam War hadnt happened yet, when one enlists into the military death and destruction should always be expected. I have no sympathy for someone who enlisted and then ran like and chicken ****. Regardless of the circumstances.

And people knew about the Vietnam War, regardless of their political stance, everyone knows what happens in war. People die and when one serves he should expect to die as well. This man is no exception. Besides for the fact that he got scared and felt no responsibility at all towards doing his duty, one that he volunteered for.

I have no problem with your uncles who did what they thought was right but you calling others, who did what they thought was right, "chicken ****" is showing a lack of understanding of the times. I believe you've been fed a one sided version.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I have no problem with your uncles who did what they thought was right but you calling others, who did what they thought was right, "chicken ****" is showing a lack of understanding of the times. I believe you've been fed a one sided version.

Do you even understand what duty is?

If you had relatives that have served in the military from as far back as I can think, you would probably understand. I do not like war, but if someone enlists they should serve that to which they are held responsible.

[STeeLy]

I think that there is indeed a big difference in Draft-Dodgers and Deserters.

Draft-Dodgers fled before any sort of training what-so-ever where as Deserters fled the scene of Battle after going through training and such.

Now, I don't know much about the matter at hand, but I believe, that if it is a crime, he should be punished for it, though someone indicated that the law has be lifted, even though no one is certain.

The two world wars and the vietnam war are two completely different things. First of all, the World Wars was more about containment, trying to stop Hitler's advance into other nations, while the Vietnam war was to stop the spread of communism. Hitler only conquered terrority for living space for his people. While more of the Asian countries rebel forces stage takeovers and establish a communist government.