EDIT: Just remember that this isn't about whether or not we agree with the war...it's about whether or not we agree/sympathize with the dodgers.

Originally Posted by dukeb

I think we would agree that nothing remotely approaching science can be applied to large scale human interactions like politics and war. Above the level of physics, scientific investigation very quickly diminishes in usefulness. By the time you get to the scope of an entire human being, science has pretty well nothing to say.

Human beings do not interact scientifically...this is absolutely true...and the key to seeing this is understanding that people do not behave predictably. The key to any scientific principle is that it must be repeatable...human nature is clearly not like this.

And since it seems like you've lumped statistics into the umbrella term "science" and have even posted a statistic yourself, I was inclined to point out that this statistic is severely flawed...that it is not as good a measure, it is not as strong evidence as you suggested.

If that's what you mean, then you're agreeing with my post...which wasn't intended to use science to predict how people behave, it was intended to poke holes into your statistic. Because like it or not, a statistic is a statistic and is to be treated like one.

But, if i can borrow the way Chomsky puts it: the aggressor, in this case the U.S., has the burden of proof when going to war.

Burden of proof, yes. But how exactly does one prove anything in matters like these? Statistics?

I'd also agree with you when you say that these deserters were making an 'idiotic' choice by joining the military. But, I wouldn't be as quick to blame them, for reasons already mentioned. I'd also add that media bias in the U.S. is significant. So, if people who have joined the military are learning to think for themselves -- and subsequently deserting the military -- then I'm in full support of that.

I would agree with this, but if they have honestly had some sort of 'epiphany' and wanted to terminate their contract, then the burden of repayment should fall on the one who violates the terms. I mean particularly as a buddhist, who 'should' have no monetary incentives in the matter.

I'm all for someone having an epiphany and changing their mind...moral compromises should be avoided at all cost. But why should they be rewarded for simply being ignorant in the first place? I'm not even calling the guy a coward, I just think he flat out rushed into the decision without thinking. Shouldn't they have kinda thought about all this before signing a contract like that?

Not to mention all of the tax problems, it winds up costing everyone else. Why should you or I pay tax money, just because this guy didn't think long and hard before making a difficult decision?

I mean I personally wanted to join the military at one point...then I sat down, thought about it, and concluded that I couldn't live with myself if I ever accidentally took an innocent life. I accepted this as a very real possibility, and rather than compromise my morals in this way, I didn't join.

Simple as that.

My view:
If you can't do anything about it, why worry too much? I'm sure taxes are wasted every other second on thigs such as these, if not more/less serious. But that's why we pay them I'm sure some bigwig will get annoyed enough eventually to deport them, or stop the practice. If not, we can write a letter, yes

Personally, i am not a supporter of Iraq war, i am very thankful that the current Canadian government decided to stay out of the war. I also realize that it is a very difficult task to install democracy in the region due to cultural differences. And democracy isnt necessarily the best form of government and i will agree with you forcing it upon someone is wrong. i was merely saying that while the sign up may be misleading and so forth i believe that it is up to the soldier candidates to take responsibility into seeing the consequences of becoming a soldier and live up to the expectation..In the army, you are taught to be better and confident than all others that you may fight against. if you stopped doing that and made the soldiers to be the nicest people around, love everyone equally, and be little angels, we might as well send in 10,000 diplomats there to try to broker a deal with the fundamentalists instead. look, all im gonna say is that 50 years ago during WWII, that deserter would've been shot dead by now for treason personally by George Patton. And most importantly, i support the troops, but not the war .

And no i havent seen the documentary yet, ill probably watch it sometime tomorrow

Also if you dont worry because you cant do anything about it, nothing will ever get done. Edmund Burke once said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." so then if we dont worry and do nothing, how can we solve the endless problems mankind faces? if you dont worry because you dont think you can do anything, thats just ignorance or laziness or being willingly blind. but then thats just how i feel, in fact, you may completely be right and i may be completely wasting my time thinking about something so useless.

Originally Posted by HeatherH

My opinion on this whole thing is that I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to judge someone in this situation. We can only imagine the kinds of things these people hear, see and have to take part in.
I'm not saying all soldiers are above the law or anything like that.. But I don't think we should be so quick to judge people who are giving up so much for us. It's easy to sit at our computers and say "This man is a coward". It's much more difficult to look into the reasons why he might have done what he did, how he feels, and what made him feel this way.
I don't know what goes on over there. Some soldiers kill themselves; that's how bad it is. We all have our opinions of course, but I don't think any of us are in any place to judge these people..

As Mowicz more or less said, I'm not calling him a coward. I'm calling him an idiot. Choosing to enlist means that you will be reporting to some sort of conflict, and that could be violent or non-violent. And considering what the states have been propagating since 2001 you'd have to assume there would be violent conflict.

Even though it's not necessarily a completely accurate interpretation, the guy must have watched at least one war movie in his life. That is the best representation we have as a culture to war...and it ain't pretty. There are plenty of films that don't glorify war, and there are films that ever though they are commending war show all of the terrible consequences you go through.

For example, I remember all of the press that was around Saving Private Ryan when it came out. WWII veterans who saw the movie said it was a completely accurate depiction of D-Day, and for many of them watching the film brought back terrible memories.

I'm assuming the US would also show footage from WWII/Vietnam/Gulf War on Veterans Day as well, or possibly in the classroom. Those images are a cleaned up version of a war, but even then are disturbing.

But, I do wonder, how does one leave the Army honorably? i.e. de-enlist?

Originally Posted by lorend

As Mowicz more or less said, I'm not calling him a coward. I'm calling him an idiot. Choosing to enlist means that you will be reporting to some sort of conflict, and that could be violent or non-violent. And considering what the states have been propagating since 2001 you'd have to assume there would be violent conflict.

Even though it's not necessarily a completely accurate interpretation, the guy must have watched at least one war movie in his life. That is the best representation we have as a culture to war...and it ain't pretty. There are plenty of films that don't glorify war, and there are films that ever though they are commending war show all of the terrible consequences you go through.

For example, I remember all of the press that was around Saving Private Ryan when it came out. WWII veterans who saw the movie said it was a completely accurate depiction of D-Day, and for many of them watching the film brought back terrible memories.

I'm assuming the US would also show footage from WWII/Vietnam/Gulf War on Veterans Day as well, or possibly in the classroom. Those images are a cleaned up version of a war, but even then are disturbing.

But, I do wonder, how does one leave the Army honorably? i.e. de-enlist?

I'm guessing almost everyone in the army is shocked and surprised when they go to war, no matter what movies they have seen. There is no way they can know what's going on. I don't think anyone here is qualified to cal this man an idiot or a coward, unless they have been in his shoes.

I think we should get back to the point of the problem here, its not about judging whether he is a coward or and idiot, its rather that he is a criminal that can be charged with indictable offence and which in many cases he can be charged with Death sentence. During Vietnam, it was reasonable for Canada to accept these, draft dodgers and deserters as people were not forced to join the army but was drafted to go to war. This is the case where the soldier is not taking the responsibility of the choices that he has made and signed on to do. We shouldn't be protecting criminals from other nations. It is also a matter of international relations, Army's discipline must be the most disciplined group in the entire nation, how, as a leader of a nation, would you feel if a neighbouring nation harboured deserters and protected them? Its something to think about.

And to be honorably discharged, i believe you have to serve out your terms you signed on to do and have great rating as a soldier. I mean, thats reasonable because if your gonna waste the army's money by making them pay for your education and so on, you should serve at least for a periods of time to pay that back.

Originally Posted by HeatherH

There is no way they can know what's going on. I don't think anyone here is qualified to cal this man an idiot or a coward, unless they have been in his shoes.

Well no...because since no one has ever walked in another person's shoes (hence why we have issues of proving that we, or others, exist and have consciousness), then by your reasoning no one is an idiot, no one is a coward, no one is smart, no one is anything since these are all relative terms.

Labelling someone as something, for better or for worse (which is another discussion entirely), is an opinionated matter. Being opinionated in this matter, I have every right to think the man's a buffoon for not thinking twice and signing up for financial gain...try and stop me, you don't even know if I exist. (bit of existential humour there)

Remember, we're not talking about a guy who was overwhelmed by what he saw on the battlefield (as a cook). We're talking about a guy who, on a very fundamental level, disagrees with war (and hence the military), joining the military. Then running off.

Yeah...I fail to see why I can't call him an idiot.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Well no...because since no one has ever walked in another person's shoes (hence why we have issues of proving that we, or others, exist and have consciousness), then by your reasoning no one is an idiot, no one is a coward, no one is smart, no one is anything since these are all relative terms.

Labelling someone as something, for better or for worse (which is another discussion entirely), is an opinionated matter. Being opinionated in this matter, I have every right to think the man's a buffoon for not thinking twice and signing up for financial gain...try and stop me, you don't even know if I exist. (bit of existential humour there)

Remember, we're not talking about a guy who was overwhelmed by what he saw on the battlefield (as a cook). We're talking about a guy who, on a very fundamental level, disagrees with war (and hence the military), joining the military. Then running off.

Yeah...I fail to see why I can't call him an idiot.

There are people qualified to say if this man was making the "right" decision when leaving. I don't think any of the people here are qualified for that, since I doubt anyone has been in the army for the past 30+ years of their life. Considering the original post said "Don't get personal", I don't know why people are throwing around the words idiot and coward. I know "don't get personal" is meant to not attack other users, but why do we need to attack this man, when we don't know anything about him.
Just because he was a cook, doesn't mean he didn't see terrible things. You can call him an idiot or a coward or whatever you want, but I really don't think that helps your argument at all. There are ways to discuss the situation without demeaning someone and calling them childish names.

Originally Posted by HeatherH

There are people qualified to say if this man was making the "right" decision when leaving. I don't think any of the people here are qualified for that, since I doubt anyone has been in the army for the past 30+ years of their life. Considering the original post said "Don't get personal", I don't know why people are throwing around the words idiot and coward. I know "don't get personal" is meant to not attack other users, but why do we need to attack this man, when we don't know anything about him.
Just because he was a cook, doesn't mean he didn't see terrible things. You can call him an idiot or a coward or whatever you want, but I really don't think that helps your argument at all. There are ways to discuss the situation without demeaning someone and calling them childish names.

Im not gonna call him a coward or anything but am i still allowed to call him a criminal? because im not judging him differently but i am calling him for what he is?

Originally Posted by HeatherH

There are people qualified to say if this man was making the "right" decision when leaving. I don't think any of the people here are qualified for that, since I doubt anyone has been in the army for the past 30+ years of their life. Considering the original post said "Don't get personal", I don't know why people are throwing around the words idiot and coward. I know "don't get personal" is meant to not attack other users, but why do we need to attack this man, when we don't know anything about him.
Just because he was a cook, doesn't mean he didn't see terrible things. You can call him an idiot or a coward or whatever you want, but I really don't think that helps your argument at all. There are ways to discuss the situation without demeaning someone and calling them childish names.

It's not demeaning. It's calling it like it is. Idiot's definition is "a foolish or stupid person". He can argue all he wants about the "romanticized" depiction of the military, but if he didn't know what an army actually does, he's either been living in isolation for the last 5000 years, or he's an idiot. Idiot seems much more likely.

A person that joins the army while being a pacifist creates their own moral dilemma. And he seems pretty foolish for putting himself in this position.

Originally Posted by HeatherH

There are people qualified to say if this man was making the "right" decision when leaving.

It's not about making the right decision to leave...it's about making the wrong decision in the first place.

Let me make an analogy...this is exactly like those people who are in such horrible situations trying to beat drug addiction. Yes, maybe someone who is trying to quit heroin abuse after grinding off all their back teeth in an attempt to find more heroin in there, is making a good decision. Yes, I'd even go so far as to feel sorry for the person...

But that doesn't mean getting hooked on heroin in the first place was a bright idea. Infact, in a situation like that, these people are refused many types of medical care (such as organ donation)...so we certainly know what the government thinks of such people.

I don't think any of the people here are qualified for that, since I doubt anyone has been in the army for the past 30+ years of their life.

See by this reasoning, it's necessary to have a PhD in math to teach someone about addition. And if I don't have a PhD in math, then my math ability is declared useless. (you can substitute Math and addition for something witty in your favourite discipline). If what you're saying is true (and I'm not arguing) that war is so terrible, then you'll know instantly. Nothing says I have to be at war any longer than a day to find out, let alone 30 years. (Note that now I'm challenging this piece of reasoning, and this has nothing to do with deserters themselves)

Where do you draw the line? What are people qualified for? There are three ways to learn in life:

-Peeing on the electric fence
-Watching your friend pee on the electric fence
-And reading about it in the newspaper

All three are valid ways to learn about something, but as you are suggesting they decrease in their levels of efficiency. Obviously, doing something yourself 'hurts' and reinforces the concept...but is it really necessary? In either case I learn that pee + electric fence = bad.

Considering the original post said "Don't get personal", I don't know why people are throwing around the words idiot and coward. I know "don't get personal" is meant to not attack other users, but why do we need to attack this man, when we don't know anything about him.

We know quite a bit about him. No, I don't know his favourite breakfast cereal, I know he was given benefits to perform a service he didn't perform...And he didn't choose not to perform it because the horrors of war are so terrifying...he did it for fundamental reasons (this is what he claims), his core beliefs forbid it. This isn't speculation, this is his own testamony, right from his mouth.

No, I don't have 30 years experience in the horrors of war, but I do know what it's like to break contracts/promises...so does just about everyone.

So yes...we can make our own inferences.

Just because he was a cook, doesn't mean he didn't see terrible things. You can call him an idiot or a coward or whatever you want, but I really don't think that helps your argument at all. There are ways to discuss the situation without demeaning someone and calling them childish names.

Just fyi, calling him an idiot isn't the argument...it's the viewpoint to be argued. There's a key difference...namely, I'm putting forth arguments to support the fact that he made a stupid decision, as opposed to just calling him an idiot to support some other argument. (In that case, it would be an ad hominem argument).

whatever happened those days when army used to be badass?

lol... Clinton took over.