• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

It is true that we join to defend the country that we are proud to be a part of. But what happens when that country no longer stands for those beliefs? If more german soldier's would have taken a stand against the Nazi's in WWII, would not more jews lives been saved? And even if this soldier did refuse to shoot the innocent person, thus being killed himself, knowledge of intention is sent to other soldiers and those soldier's realize that something is wrong here, then they are influenced to see what is right and what is wrong. They begin to question their beliefs. WWII reeked of propaganda thus causing soldier's who morally questioned their actions but were ignorantly told that what they were doing was right. Sure they are not in the wrong by german law, but international they were seen as war criminals. Now, it has been acutely stated that the war in Iraq has been falsely sold to the American people by lies. There were no WMD's and they knew it. So now, one man stands against this because he is no longer fighting for the country he believes in, but a country built on deceiving it's people. A parallel to what the Nazi's did. So, as a soldier, do you condemn him for being a coward, because he 'volunteered' his life to defend a country he loved, or do you condemn him to death as a true hero for doing something he finds, and possibly one day the American people will find one day (as history has taught us with the German population and how they felt about the Nazi's years later when they learned of the propaganda that they were fed) absolutely unjust and morally wrong as an individual? If you choose to condemn him to death, do you not fall within the stereotypical line that a soldier must not think but only act. Will this only uphold the image of a soldier being a puppet rather than a hero? Sure the war will be fought, whether this man stays in Canada or not, but the action he has taken  will start a dialogue. His intent to stand up against something that he knows is wrong will be heard by everyone and then possibly one day unjust wars fought by propaganada can be extinguished. But until we are coherant of our weaknesses  that allow ourselves to be sold something so easily, we cannot begin to cease the spinning cycle of history and it's repetitions.
 
This is an interesting article.
On the one hand he's allready been deployed and returned. He's been there and no longer believes in the war but no mention as why?
On the other hand, he lied to gain entry into Canada, abandoned his families (both biological and military)

Strike said:
Wiley was aware the stakes were high when he decided to give up his life in the U.S. as a way of avoiding a deployment to Iraq.

It's sad that he feels he has to run,
it's also sad he's using Canada as a shield to avoid the consequences of his actions...
 
char9409 said:
It is true that we join to defend the country that we are proud to be a part of. But what happens when that country no longer stands for those beliefs? If more german soldier's would have taken a stand against the Nazi's in WWII, would not more jews lives been saved? And even if this soldier did refuse to shoot the innocent person, thus being killed himself, knowledge of intention is sent to other soldiers and those soldier's realize that something is wrong here, then they are influenced to see what is right and what is wrong. They begin to question their beliefs. WWII reeked of propaganda thus causing soldier's who morally questioned their actions but were ignorantly told that what they were doing was right. Sure they are not in the wrong by german law, but international they were seen as war criminals. Now, it has been acutely stated that the war in Iraq has been falsely sold to the American people by lies. There were no WMD's and they knew it. So now, one man stands against this because he is no longer fighting for the country he believes in, but a country built on deceiving it's people. A parallel to what the Nazi's did. So, as a soldier, do you condemn him for being a coward, because he 'volunteered' his life to defend a country he loved, or do you condemn him to death as a true hero for doing something he finds, and possibly one day the American people will find one day (as history has taught us with the German population and how they felt about the Nazi's years later when they learned of the propaganda that they were fed) absolutely unjust and morally wrong as an individual? If you choose to condemn him to death, do you not fall within the stereotypical line that a soldier must not think but only act. Will this only uphold the image of a soldier being a puppet rather than a hero? Sure the war will be fought, whether this man stays in Canada or not, but the action he has taken  will start a dialogue. His intent to stand up against something that he knows is wrong will be heard by everyone and then possibly one day unjust wars fought by propaganada can be extinguished. But until we are coherant of our weaknesses  that allow ourselves to be sold something so easily, we cannot begin to cease the spinning cycle of history and it's repetitions.

Firstly - there are things called "paragraphs", they are usually denoted with a blank line between them (indentation of the first line is also the convention - but not not used on internet forums).  Lack of them made reading and understanding your post a hard slog.

Secondly - I think I understand where you are coming from, but I would submit that if he did, indeed, have a "change of heart" then he needed to either finish his service, and THEN become an anti-war activist, or approach his chain of command and go through the hoops required to become a Conscientious Objector.  He didn't do either - he ran away, abandoning his fellows on the field of battle, leaving a hole in the organization to which he belongs, caused a MASSIVE amount of unnecessary angst to his family - not to mention the MASSIVE amounts of unnecessary work he caused the government agencies of TWO countries.

He gets no sympathy from me.
 
Boater said:
Deport him

We will, however the system moves slowly. We need to do it by the book to ensure they can't use some pathetic loophole to stay here.

The first of these pathetic cowards have already had their hearings, been denied, appealed, been denied and will soon be receiving their deportation orders. Soon they will pick up their last welfare cheques, say their tearful goodbyes to the misguided here who "help" them and cross the border. Their countrymen and former comrades and arms will be waiting to ensure they receive an appropriate welcome home.
 
His intent to stand up against something that he knows is wrong will be heard by everyone and then possibly one day unjust wars fought by propaganada can be extinguished.

It has happened before, from this article about 200 times...and most people don't care.  One more time, won't really change a thing except for the one individual.
I say deport him.  Because even though some may see the war as unjust, by allowing people to hide out in this country now, we are setting a precedent for all future wars.  Even if they are just, some people still won't want to go and they'll come here.  What a GREAT reputation Canada will get by allowing soldiers who don't want to do their jobs (that they signed a contract for) to run away and hide here.

The needs of the many outweigh the "needs" of the few or the one.  You have a problem with the war?  Well get lost and take what's coming to you, we have a country to look after here.
 
Koenigsegg said:
It has happened before, from this article about 200 times...and most people don't care.  One more time, won't really change a thing except for the one individual.
I say deport him.  Because even though some may see the war as unjust, by allowing people to hide out in this country now, we are setting a precedent for all future wars.  Even if they are just, some people still won't want to go and they'll come here.  What a GREAT reputation Canada will get by allowing soldiers who don't want to do their jobs (that they signed a contract for) to run away and hide here.

The needs of the many outweigh the "needs" of the few or the one.  You have a problem with the war?  Well get lost and take what's coming to you, we have a country to look after here.

We already set that precedent during Veitnam.
 
Charlotte

Nice try comparing the present situation in the USA with Germany in World War 2.  However now that my colleague has given you a basic lesson in English composition shall we move on to one in history.

There were many Germans both Military and Civilian who opposed Hitler and the Nazis and paid the terrible price for doing so. I suggest a quick Google on Oberstleutnant Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, General Ludwig Beck and Operation Walküre, or Die Rote Kapelle, or Sophie Scholl and die Weiße Rose.

To even attempt to compare today's crop of self styled “war resistor" to those brave men and women is an absolute travesty.

There was resistance in the US during the Vietnam War and there is again today during the present conflict and one can argue the merits pro or con for it.

Like many others I could have a grudging respect for someone who chose not to serve for whatever reason and remained in his country and faced the consequences of that action no matter what they may be including possible imprisonment.

I have no respect for cowards who flee their country in the middle of the night and then attack it from the sanctity of another wrapping their callous selfish actions in a thin veneer of pompous self righteousness.
 
True...
...damn  :)

But I would rather that not continue, and now is the best time to get on it in my opinion.  Slight differences as well.  Vietnam was conscription, now it is purely volunteer.  I'm not saying it is ok as long as you are conscripted, just that it's a little more stomachable.

But as Danjanou said, it looks like things are working themselves out.
 
Bartron said:
We already set that precedent during Veitnam.
Vietnam was different then this scenario.
There was a draft for Vietnam, there was no little choice for those who did not believe with that war.
This man Volunteered and is now backing out of that obligation.

Maybe others feel differently but I have no problems with the precedent that Canada is a place that will not FORCE you to go to a war that you do not believe in. I do have a problem with the precedent that Canada is a place to hide out while trying to avoid your obligations.
 
cheeky_monkey said:
One acronym that comes to mind is:

Never
Again
Volunteer
Yourself

Good one... from someone who has never served a day in his short life.


This man gets no sympathy from me. He's worried about being deployed back to Iraq?! Give me a fracking break! He was in the Gulf on a carrier, he never had boots on the ground and he's afraid to go back to a cushy fracking life on a carrier? Where he has hot showers, nice meals three times a day and gets unlimted internet?! Get the frack out of here! Unfracking believable!

Frack him! Send him back to the States. Frack him! FRACK! This idiot makes the rest of us in the Navy look bad... FRACK HIM!
 
What do these people think, that we're a bunch of pacifist's up here and we'll greet them with open arms. God give me a break.

Send them all back, every last one of them!! It seems Canada is becoming a haven for malcontents, war resisters, terrorist's and god only knows what else, find them all and send them back to were they came from.

You volunteered to serve your country, you serve period. All he had to do was quit and not run away like a coward.

Theres only one place for these people "Leavenworth"
 
Just out of curiosity...are the regs that different in the States that these soldiers can't just release? If you don't want to deploy, then get out of the military. Or is it that once you're in, they can deny a release or call you out of retirement and require you to deploy?
 
teddybear said:
Just out of curiosity...are the regs that different in the States that these soldiers can't just release? If you don't want to deploy, then get out of the military. Or is it that once you're in, they can deny a release or call you out of retirement and require you to deploy?

To be fair - type these words into Google, and start reading.  "tour extension Iraq"
 
I was a little confused about the headline, since it said "former US Navy officer" when it states in the article this Wiley guy was a Petty Officer (E-4 through E-9, though they didn't specify whether he was a CPO or not) before and therefore an NCO, not a commissioned officer. Just an annoying little detail- perhaps a mod can correct the headline.


 
cheeky_monkey said:
He was a CPO.

Doesn't matter. Not an officer. A NCO sure, and a senior one at that, but not an officer.
 
teddybear said:
Just out of curiosity...are the regs that different in the States that these soldiers can't just release? If you don't want to deploy, then get out of the military. Or is it that once you're in, they can deny a release or call you out of retirement and require you to deploy?


They are actually releasing a movie soon called "Stop-Loss", where a Marine Sgt  has his release squashed and redeployed to Iraq, and I guess this is like someone coming to the end of their BE or BE2 and without signing another contract, being forced to go to Afghanistan to fill a billet, because the Yanks are losing more soldiers due to death and injury faster than they can recruit and train replacements, so they can't afford to lose able bodied soldiers over the minor detail of a contract, almost like the draft, but at the other end of service. Mind you this guy was Navy and having served on ships in the gulf, I know it can be stressful, but hardly something that requires one to run away from, leaving you country and life behind and being branded a coward.
 
Back
Top