American Gov't Arrests Canadian

[mykalberta]

Thats strange - I am 26 and the only old people I have a default level of respect for no matter how battle-axe like they may be are those who fought in WW1/2 and those who lived through it.

I remember a picture of a parade in Dallas I think, the US military was marching and the only person standing for them in a crowd of about 2000 were these 2 old guys who each had canes.

I saw that picture 2 years after I graduated high school and that picture has changed my whole outlook on life. I no longer have sympathy for any draft dodgers and I would say that if I new someone was a draft dodger (or even worse desterter) it would most definately sour my opinoin of said person(s)

MYK

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The American school system was full of pro war brainwashing hype, spreading into Canada as well.
Anyone who was around during the Viet Nam war knows that the American Govt, was misrepresenting and lying to it's citizens. Does this mean you're still bound by the contract?

Jesus Christ you're an idiot. If you sign on the dotted line, you are responsible under all circumstances to carry out your part in the contract. Its like buying a car, regardless of whether or not the dealer ripped you off, you can't just stop paying for the car because you feel the price wasn't warrented.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I used to go every year. I've probably been to at least 10 of them.

I understand what you mean.

Prior to Afghanistan(I have two brothers there) such things were irrelevent to me as well.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Jesus Christ you're an idiot. If you sign on the dotted line, you are responsible under all circumstances to carry out your part in the contract. Its like buying a car, regardless of whether or not the dealer ripped you off, you can't just stop paying for the car because you feel the price wasn't warrented.

Getting a little angry are you?

The soldier isn't buying anything, he's selling his services. In your made up analogy the soldier sells the car and finds out you lied on your credit application and can't make your payments. Time for the repo man.

Nice try though, have a nice day.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The soldier isn't buying anything, he's selling his services. In your made up analogy the soldier sells the car and finds out you lied on your credit application and can't make your payments. Time for the repo man.
Nice try though, have a nice day.

And the Government reposessed what they lost when the soilder deserted.

Thank you come again.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Getting a little angry are you?

The soldier isn't buying anything, he's selling his services. In your made up analogy the soldier sells the car and finds out you lied on your credit application and can't make your payments. Time for the repo man.

Nice try though, have a nice day.

I was comparing it as a contract. How many frickin times do I have to explain. When you "sign" on the dotted line, you are obligated to obey everything the contract asks of you, until that contract runs out. Just like your obligated to make your car payments, until your loan runs out.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was comparing it as a contract. How many frickin times do I have to explain. When you "sign" on the dotted line, you are obligated to obey everything the contract asks of you, until that contract runs out. Just like your obligated to make your car payments, until your loan runs out.

or the other party reneges on the contract. I say the govt. did, you say the soldier did. Don't forget that these young men signed up with a proverbial gun to the head.

Here's an interesting article for you that seems to be fairly unbiased.

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc20.htm

One thng this article doesn't mention is that there were many newspapers on the bases against the war. Kind of educating the new recruits before they got quickly shipped out.

[Azure]

Don't forget that these young men signed up with a proverbial gun to the head.

He signed up with free will. What part of that didn't you get?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't forget that these young men signed up with a proverbial gun to the head.

He signed up with free will. What part of that didn't you get?

I guess you should go back and reread that article or any history book.

You do know there was a draft going on?
Why do I bother?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Why do I bother?

I was kind of wondering that myself. Sheesh. But here I go...

Azure, the point is that in the eyes of the soldier the contract was violated, so the deal is off. That is how a contract is supposed to work.

If you buy, sell, rent a car or anything else and the guy you dealt with doesn't live up to his end of the bargain, would you keep up your end of it?

If you sold him the car, would you not want it back if he refused to pay for it?

If you bought the car, would you keep paying for it if he removed the engine prior to delivery?

Maybe you would. It kinda sounds like it. Wanna buy a bridge? I've got the paperwork right here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I guess you should go back and reread that article or any history book.

You do know there was a draft going on?
Why do I bother?

Because you're an idiot. Maybe you should read the frickin' article.

Allen Abney, who was born in the U.S. but raised in Canada, joined the Marine Corps in 1968 at the age of 19. After going through basic training in North Carolina, Allen fled to Canada before he could be sent to Vietnam.
Thousands of young Americans did the same thing, although many were dodging the draft rather than deserting. Many of them also moved to the southern B.C. interior.

Draft dodger
n : someone who is drafted and illegally refuses to serve

de·sert·ed, de·sert·ing, de·serts
v. tr.

1. To leave empty or alone; abandon.
2. To withdraw from, especially in spite of a responsibility or duty; forsake: deserted her friend in a time of need.
3. To abandon (a military post, for example) in violation of orders or an oath.

So which did this dumbass do?

And.......

Carter also allowed war deserters to apply for resolution of their cases. For whatever reason, Allen never applied.

Allen is a deserter, not a draft dodger. Meaning he enlisted, and wasn't drafted. Get a freakin' clue.

Maybe I should explain what enlist means.

v. en·list·ed, en·list·ing, en·lists
v. tr.

1. To engage (persons or a person) for service in the armed forces.
2. To engage the support or cooperation of.

v. intr.

1. To enter the armed forces.
2. To participate actively in a cause or enterprise.

I don't see anything that has to do with being drafted. Right?

[Vulcan]

This topic is going no where and it's not because I'm "an idiot". It's because you have a problem adding two and two. Goodnight.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Azure, the point is that in the eyes of the soldier the contract was violated, so the deal is off. That is how a contract is supposed to work.

Groan . . . . I really don't want to leap into this but . . . . .

You know . . . . . you might think about the other side of what might happen if individual soldiers and their commanders developed a tradition, and a sense of empowerment as a result of weighing the "morality" or "political validity" of the orders placed in front of them by an elected civilian government.

The inevitable consequence of that, as we can see in many examples around the world, is the military is empowered and the authority of the elected, and therefore accountable, civilian branch diminished.

Its not a difficult leap from there to a legacy of military coups.

While no form of democracy is perfect, the version where the military is an unquestioning instrument of civilian authority and where the latter in turn is itself a slave to the electorate, accountable for its decisions within a reasonable time frame, remains the version we should favour.

That doesn't diminish the right of a soldier to refuse an order which international convention has declared is morally wrong . . . . . but on the whole he/she should be a an unquestioning and non-moralizing slave of elected civilian oversight . . . . . in fact, precisely what he/she agree to when he/she signed up.

Specific to Vietnam, you may not like the draft, and neither do I frankly, but it was the law of the land at the time of Vietnam, instituted and endorsed by several elected administrations of both the left and the right, just as its still the law of the land in some European countries.

You also may not like the decisions made by a civilian government surrounding Vietnam or the military decisions for which the civilian government is inevitably responsible . . . . but those decisions were ultimately subject to review by the elected representatives of the civilian electorate both at the time and in succeeding, hindsight, years.

You may have an opinion about the morality of the decisions surrounding Vietnam but those did occur under three Presidents and numerous versions of an elected Congress and House of Representatives AND have been subject to 30 years of subsequent debate and further elections, the results influencing future policy decisions and elections.

Although an individual soldier has the right to expression his/her opinion at a ballot box, ultimately, as per the law of the land and by democratic tradition, its not the business of the individual soldier to question where he/she is sent and/or how he/she is employed when they get there (acknowledging the moral right of a soldier to refuse an order such as lining someone up against a wall and shooting them without due process).

Comically, ironically, and I suppose tragically, one of the singular lessons coming out of Vietnam is that the duly elected civilian government shouldn't be running the minute, daily, details of a war being fought thousands of miles away.

A debate like this reminds us there is no perfect version of democracy since, in the end, it's still subject to the peccadillo's of human nature, the good and the bad.

By the way, 38% of those drafted by the American armed forces served in Vietnam. . . . . 62% did not. Two-thirds of those who served for America in Vietnam were volunteers while two-thirds of those serving in WWII were drafted. Seventy percent of servicemen killed in Vietnam were volunteers.

And, for balance, there exists a body of opinion that Vietnam was worth the effort. I won't defend it . . . . I'm just saying its there.

http://www.vietnam-war.info/facts/

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Good post Cow.

BTW on the enlistment document it states that you can be sent into war at the sufferance of the Civil authority which is the commander in chief of the armed forces which is the standing president.

Anyone who enlists is aware of that unless they don't read thier enlistment contract, which by the way is no excuse under any law.

Therefore when this person enlisted (was not drafted), its implied that he understood the consequences of signing up. So saying that he didn't want to be deployed to Vietnam and deserting is no excuse under the law.

If he had a moral problem with going to Vietnam then he should have presented that to his commanding officer, the worst he would have gotten was time in prison which shouldn't be a big price to pay if your trying to make a moral stand. At best he would have gotten a dishonerable discharge.

As it stands, he took the cowards stance and fled his posts therefore going AWOL which is a federal offense.

This isn't some romantic story about a guy standing up and fighting against the man. This guy enlisted voluntarily in an elite military formation (The Marines), took pay from them and wasted thier time and money when they trained him, and when he was ordered legally by his commander and chief to go and fight in Vietnam he fled like a thief in the night.

Now the Marines have done the decent thing and discharged him, they even paid for his flight home which dosen't sound like something that an oppressive and evil military would normally do, but it does close the book on this guy and let him get on with his life.

But I have no sympathy for him at all. Hell I have more sympathy for draft dodgers then this character.

[RougeUnderoos]

Yowza. Can't argue with that. Well, maybe I'll try a little bit.

It all works well and good if the military is working at the behest of the electorate but I don't think that was the case in this particular war. Joe Public didn't know what was going on, and his congressman probably didn't either.

I don't believe it was a case of "the people agreed with it all through the ballot box at the time".

Re: the contract stuff... my point for Azure is basically that contracts can be broken if the deal has been reneged on. Whether this guy was justified in doing so in this case is open for interpretation, but Azure's insistence that "you signed on the dotted line so that's it end of story no matter what", is wrong.

[CaptainCrunch]

Whether the government is working on the behest of the individual civilian is really not relevant in this case, the soldier dosen't answer to the voters, he answers to the Commander and Chief and the Military Chain of Command. If this individual didn't agree with the policies in place he shouldn't have enlisted to serve that government.

Contracts can be broken but in nearly every case there are legal consequences, and the legal subtext of this contract has nothing to do with personal feelings or beliefs.

He signed a contract to obey the directives of the Commander and Chief of the United States Military, he also knew that he could be called upon to serve in a war abroad, there are no grey areas, he can either follow these orders or not follow them and suffer the consequences, which is understandable under a draft system, but not under a voluntary system.

There was a reason why the American Government was willing to forgive Draft Dodgers, but not deserters.

[Cowperson]

It all works well and good if the military is working at the behest of the electorate but I don't think that was the case in this particular war.

Well, we all have an opinion.

As I said, the more common lament - and a well documented one - coming out of that war was the opposite of your interpretation, that the civilian authority was micro-managing the war from the White House to the detriment of the military on the ground in theatre.

In other words, the common complaint in Vietnam was the military was hamstrung by the civilian armchair quarterbacks, that there was too much control of the military by elected civilians.

You've seen that charge colour every American military venture since that time, including the current one.

I don't believe it was a case of "the people agreed with it all through the ballot box at the time".

A lot of wars start off as popular endeavours - something most don't want to admit - but most lose their luster with the electorate the longer they go on.

Many of America's potential foes assume correctly that a democracy can't really stomach a prolonged conflict . . . . . and that's actually a positive thing to say about a democracy, if not its strength.

Kennedy essentially started Vietnam, Johnston escalated it, Nixon shut it down, Jimmy Carter reaped the wind of distaste for conflict (and corruption) and Reagan reaped the distaste over the lack of spine shown by Carter.

Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Republican (two Nixon terms), Democrat and Republican.

A lot of elections. A lot of leaping back and forth between the left and the right.

Also, it was The Age Of Protest, fueled by the idealistic boomer generation in its youth, with many observors feeling the Vietnam conflict was lost on the home front . . . . .

Considering the level of dissent and unhappiness the conflict stirred, the repeated changing of governments, I don't see how you can say the public didn't have an opinion and didn't act on those opinions.

my point for Azure is basically that contracts can be broken if the deal has been reneged on. Whether this guy was justified in doing so in this case is open for interpretation,

That's not open for interpretation. He broke a contract. The law, created by democratically elected forces, says he did at the time and the law still says that today, 30 years of elections and varied opinions later.

People disagree about the morality of Vietnam but, strangely, they don't seem to disagree enough about draft dodgers and deserters to change laws even after 30 years.

Cowperson

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Re: the contract stuff... my point for Azure is basically that contracts can be broken if the deal has been reneged on. Whether this guy was justified in doing so in this case is open for interpretation, but Azure's insistence that "you signed on the dotted line so that's it end of story no matter what", is wrong.

Do you even understand anything about law and order? He broke his contract, one that he swore an "oath" to carry out.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do you even understand anything about law and order? He broke his contract, one that he swore an "oath" to carry out.

One thing is for sure -- your inclusion of those smilies really drives home your point, such as it is.

As for law and order, I think I get it well enough to get by.

Hows about a simple multiple choice question.

1) If you sign a contract and the other guy violates it, do you keep up your end of the bargain?

A) yes
B) no

Myself, my answer would be B.

As an addendum to my "no" answer, I'd add that only a sucker, a chump of the highest order, would continue to fulfill his end of a contract if it turned out to be a sham.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

One thing is for sure -- your inclusion of those smilies really drives home your point, such as it is.

As for law and order, I think I get it well enough to get by.

Hows about a simple multiple choice question.

1) If you sign a contract and the other guy violates it, do you keep up your end of the bargain?

A) yes
B) no

Myself, my answer would be B.

As an addendum to my "no" answer, I'd add that only a sucker, a chump of the highest order, would continue to fulfill his end of a contract if it turned out to be a sham.

Jesus Christ. Did the US Military violate their end of the bargain? Allen signing knowing he could be sent to war. So Allen violated his contract, something that is called "breaking the law." Like Cowperson said, that law has stood through numerous Presidents from both sides of the political spectrum.

Therefore the US has every right to arrest him.