Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

U.S. soldier who fled to Canada, flees again
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:13 pm    Post subject: U.S. soldier who fled to Canada, flees again Reply with quote

A U.S. Army soldier who fled to Canada rather than return to Iraq has disappeared again, this time just a day after surrendering to the military.
Pvt. Kyle Snyder, 23, of Colorado Springs, Colo., told The Associated Press he was supposed to return by bus to Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., Louisville on Tuesday but didn't go. He said he went AWOL after Fort Knox officials told him he would be sent back to his unit, the 94th Engineer Battalion.

"I came back in good faith," Snyder said Wednesday by phone. "I put my trust in them one more time. Why should I put my trust in them again when I can just go back to Canada?"

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/01/D8L4KQD00.html

[I am not sure I support this soldier because whether you sign up for the military in the U.S. or Canada, you know there are risks. I can understand if you object to it as an illegal war.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
canuckistan
Mod Team
Mod Team


Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He was supposed to get an "other than honorable discharge" upon his return. I don't what kind of deal he worked out with them, but I'm assuming it wasn't supposed to include being returned to his unit.

The guy saw what he believed to be an innocent man get killed in Iraq.

While enlisting has it responsibilites everyone is aware of when they sign up and serve, I also believe people have to live by their consciences, which in the end I don't think can rightfully be superceded by any authority.

Some people just don't have the stomach for killing other humans and still getting a good sleep at night. We see enough of those chaptered out of the army every month. I guess one never knows how one handles it until you've got it right in your face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meegook



Joined: 12 Oct 2006

PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Iraq war is an illegal undeclared war started on false pretenses by treasonous murderers who should be arrested, tried and hung.

Kudos to those in the military who uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and refuse to involve themselves in an illegal war led by a lying Commander in Thief who admits he thinks the Constitution is just a 'goddamned piece of paper' and that torture is acceptable and habeas corpus is a relic of the past and the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to him or his cronies and can't wait to declare martial law and put a bullet in the back of the heads of those who disagree with him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canuckistan, I am in accord with you that one must consult one's conscience when serving in war. Yet, I do have a question. How many wars have soldiers where one doesn't see another soldier kill a civilian? It happens in every conflict. You might argue that the difference is that the U.S. government has ignored atrocities or war crimes by soldiers until CDs with photos come to surface. The military has covered up too many things. Also, the Iraq War violates the international law. However, it does not clearly violate the U.S. Constitution as Meegook stated. If this soldier was given the impression he would get a less than honourable discharge, and he has proof of that, then he should leave the U.S. and make Canada his home.

Half of Canadians do not want the soldiers in Afghanistan. I am sure some civilians have been killed by members of the NATO forces.
What if a Canadian soldier decides not to serve? Would you oppose his court-martial, even though the said soldier is not a pacifist per se?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spliff



Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope they shoot his ass in the back! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NAVFC



Joined: 10 May 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The wholemwar being illegal (which it WAS NOT) should not be a factor. First off even when your being processed for a OTH you are still returned to your uunit while the paper work is processed
secondly, even if a individual soldier believes a war is illegal he is still required to fight it, he is how ever obligated to disobey any UNLAWFUL orders while in such conflict. For instance The nazis. invaded people left and right, totally illegal, but it was the nazis leadership who was tried, the soldiers, the ones who fought within the laws of armed conflict, weren't tried for anything as they had done nothing wrong. Its when you get into war crimes, IE: civilian killing, etc etc that individual soldiers are tried for war crimes, but fighting in a war ordered by your government, , done with in the LOAC by the individual soldier, is legal for that soldier whether or not the war was illegal. The legality or not of the war is a burden the leadership must bear and pay the consequences for.

But this was is legal and just. No one has ruled the war to be illegal. In Afghanistan, the taliban government sheltered al qaeda and thus was open to legal attack.
Iraq was already in violation of several UN resolutions on things such as human rights R/D on missiles with range greater then that permitted by UN resolution, and even the UN declared Iraqs "full final" WMD disclosure was a lie and said it failed to account for much of the known Iraqi stockpile.
On those pretenses alone, legality can be found.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Meegook



Joined: 12 Oct 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The wholemwar being illegal (which it WAS NO


Wrong again, see Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

NAVFC likes to give his opinion, but never backs up what he says with facts.

Quote:
even if a individual soldier believes a war is illegal he is still required to fight it,


Wrong, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if the war is illegal, the solider is required to obey and defend the Constitution, not the Commander in Chief or his superiors.

Enlistment Oath

I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The military is supposed to defend the country from all "all enemies, foreign and domestic;" That includes the president and vice president when they are enemies, which in our present case they are.

With your thinking we could end up with a Nazi military, which is what we have now. Next, Bush is going to send the military into American streets to shoot American citizens. Are you saying the troops should shoot American citizens if the president says they should?

Did you take this oath?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

canuckistan wrote:
While enlisting has it responsibilites everyone is aware of when they sign up and serve, I also believe people have to live by their consciences, which in the end I don't think can rightfully be superceded by any authority.

Some people just don't have the stomach for killing other humans and still getting a good sleep at night. We see enough of those chaptered out of the army every month. I guess one never knows how one handles it until you've got it right in your face.


I agree with your principles, as you articulate them here. However, they might carry much more weight if the U.S. armed forces did not operate as an all-volunteer military.

So the answer to those who share these very respectable principles is this: don't enlist.

I recall being asked whether I thought of myself as "a conscientious objecter" two or three different ways when I enlisted. I believe that remains the same for enlistees today. Did this soldier not read those parts before he initialed each clause?

Looking at this from another potential angle: U.S. military personnel of all ranks are ethically required to refuse illegal and immoral orders. Why has this soldier not argued something like this in his own defense? Why not make a stand from within the Army, object to the war's justification on legal and/or moral grounds, and refuse to return to it?

Here is an answer: he is partly scared for his own safety and, not thinking about longer-term consequences, just trying to get away to anywhere but the Army. And much of this has become an inflated, even fabricated pretext to justify his running away, picked up and ran with by people like OP, who look for any reason to justify and reaffirm their own position against the U.S.

But this story is really a simple one, and easy to understand: people who have been in a war zone have a very hard time going back to that war zone, particularly such a one as we see in Iraq today.


Last edited by Gopher on Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:55 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NAVFC



Joined: 10 May 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meegook wrote:
Quote:
The wholemwar being illegal (which it WAS NO


Wrong again, see Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

NAVFC likes to give his opinion, but never backs up what he says with facts.

Quote:
even if a individual soldier believes a war is illegal he is still required to fight it,


Wrong, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if the war is illegal, the solider is required to obey and defend the Constitution, not the Commander in Chief or his superiors.

Enlistment Oath

I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The military is supposed to defend the country from all "all enemies, foreign and domestic;" That includes the president and vice president when they are enemies, which in our present case they are.

With your thinking we could end up with a Nazi military, which is what we have now. Next, Bush is going to send the military into American streets to shoot American citizens. Are you saying the troops should shoot American citizens if the president says they should?

Did you take this oath?



Wrong. In this case our enemy is AL QAEDA and terrorists.

And your wrong one two points.
First off, during World War II, was every german soldier tried? No. Only those who committed war crimes. Why is that Meegook?
You are still required to deploy, even to a war zone.
Your way out of your league on this one.

Secondly, there has never been an official ruling stating the US war was illegal. Not even a UN censure. So your grounds for that argument are also lacking.
Its all based on the rubbish you spout with no hard facts to back any of it up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NAVFC wrote:
...there has never been an official ruling stating the US war was illegal. Not even a UN censure...


You should probably not mention this to anyone on the far left. Just as anyone who disagrees with them is usually either a nationalist drone, a tool of the Zionist lobby, a racist, or a biggot, they, and they alone, are the holy interpreters of what is legal, moral, and justifiable or not in national and world affairs.

Cross them and you secure their unrelenting wrath against you for all time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NAVFC



Joined: 10 May 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also Meegook I forgot to add this, do you know why soldiers are required to fight, (WITHIN lines of LOAC IE: no abuses of civilians, etc) regardless of there opinion of the war? If they made a law stating soldiers didnt have to fight if they thought (IE THERE OPINION) that the war was illegal wed have a in effective military. Then, any soldier could refuse orders based on his own opinion. Soldiers would be in effect, able to pick and choose their wars. and that is NOT going to happen. That is why you are still required to go. This is why you didnt see the trying of every single german soldier (only ones who committed war cimes)
A Military is bound to the chain of command, and as long as said chain of command doesnt ask you to commit atrocities, , you will obey. Soldiers do not pick their wars.
We, the US military, volunteer fully aware that we must obey our orders.
I will obey them too.
For instance, I am half Mexican. If the US ever got into a war with mexico, regardless of my ethnicity, I would obey my orders and fight with all of my ability as I am obliged to do so.
This is the burden of the soldier, the sailor, the airmen, and it is a burden we accept willingly, to defend our natin and our freedom.
This is soemthing you do not understand megook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Meegook



Joined: 12 Oct 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Wrong. In this case our enemy is AL QAEDA and terrorists.


Again, your opinion and no substantiation. And again, the facts run counter to your opinion.

And your Commander in Chief and the FBI disagree with you.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

FBI says, �No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."






"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

Oops! No mention of 9/11.
Quote:

to defend our natin and our freedom.


Sorry there Military Man, but your first obligation is to defend the US Constitution. And secondly, "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" ie. the Constitution. Why? Because it is the Constitution that defends us against our enemies foreign and domestic. and then to obey the Commander in Chief and only when he acts in accordance to the regulations set down in Uniform Code of Military Justice.

See Military Oath above.

All military personnel have the sworn obligation to protect American citizens from all enemies, and that inlcudes domestic enemies as well, including the President and Vice President.

Are you willing to do what you've sworn to do? Defend the Constitution?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meegook



Joined: 12 Oct 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

there has never been an official ruling stating the US war was illegal. Not even a UN censure. So your grounds for that argument are also lacking.
Its all based on the rubbish you spout with no hard facts to back any of it up.


Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html
Quote:

Its all based on the rubbish you spout with no hard facts to back any of it up.


LMHO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supernick



Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Secondly, there has never been an official ruling stating the US war was illegal. Not even a UN censure. So your grounds for that argument are also lacking.
Its all based on the rubbish you spout with no hard facts to back any of it up.



Well, from what Gwangjuboy had to say, itnernational law works differently. There have been numerous illegal acts in Iraq, and not one has been brought to any international court. These things take time. The Germans were quickly dealt with and the world moved on.

The war was clearly illegal as what the law states. Bush himself has said that previous UN resolutions gives him the right to attack Iraq, but that is not really true. If previous resolutions gave permission, then why did the U.S. seek a new resolution? I also remember Bush saying that he nor the American people need to get permission to protect itself. That would be fine if America was being attacked, but what we have learned (at least some of us anyway) is that there was no threat.

I would defend my nation, but if it were to enter war as an aggressor, it would be a different story. I also think that others sign up to defend their nations, but do you really think these men and women are defending their nation?

Quote:
Wrong. In this case our enemy is AL QAEDA and terrorists


If this is the case, then why Iraq?

Gogher wrote:

Quote:
You should probably not mention this to anyone on the far left. Just as anyone who disagrees with them is usually either a nationalist drone, a tool of the Zionist lobby, a racist, or a biggot, they, and they alone, are the holy interpreters of what is legal, moral, and justifiable or not in national and world affairs
.

And the people who say it is legal (the ones on the far right) belong to a party (who has a leading member) that likes pay for gay sex on drugs. It's not a matter of opinion of whether the law was illegal; it's a matter of fact of what the law states. As i said before, if the was was legal, then why did the U.S. and the UK seek a new resolution? Regardless of being legal or illegal, the war lacks any form a legitimacy. Worse, is that your country lied, and if you and others think that's a good thing, then good for you. America's true enemy lies within itself but most are too blind too see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meegook



Joined: 12 Oct 2006

PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If this is the case, then why Iraq?


Good point.

Quote:
America's true enemy lies within itself but most are too blind too see.


If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

James Madison 'Father of the Constitution'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International