Conquer Club

Just when you thought you could get away from the United States military by hopping the border into Canada...think again!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/

Does this count for all the Vietnam-era deserters as well?

I guess these guys need to start to learn to speak Spanish and go a little farther south

no offense but canada S-U-C-K-S!

danvoy9787 wrote:no offense but canada S-U-C-K-S!

No offense but you are an I-M-M-A-T-U-R-E T-W-A-T

Iliad wrote:

danvoy9787 wrote:no offense but canada S-U-C-K-S!

No offense but you are an I-M-M-A-T-U-R-E T-W-A-T

QFT

No offence but P-A-N-T-S!!!!!


Didn't Canada grant amnesty for American soldiers who didn't want to be forced to continue going back to Iraq/Afgahnastan when their service was expiring(because they can't come home till their unit does. In some cases over a year later.)?

But yeah... What about that joint safety board thing under NAFTA? It's one continent...

"Canada is like a loft apartment over a really great party" - Robin Williams

Half the vote are just plain mean, and the others are spam, with the exepetion of North.

I'll submit that Canada is awesome. I have enjoyed visits there, My friends there are all good people.

As to the extradition thing - honestly, good. They shoudn't be granting amnesty to our soldiers who are deserters - we are supposed to be allies. Being a good ally isn't a one-way street, and for all the talk about what the US supposedly needs to do for the rest of the world to be a good friend and ally, the same is in reverse.

Let's say your friend picks a fight with someone - even if you don't think he should be in that fight, do you desert him? No one is saying that Canada has to be gung ho about the War on Terror, but giving sanctuary to US Army deserters just because of a War Policy isn't something a close ally and neighbor should do. I would expect the US to do the same for Canadian deserters.

...Except that service in the military is voluntary...

Both people in Canada will find this offensive.

hahaha, Suggs.

In any case, how can one smoke too much weed or eat too much bacon?

Deadpool809 wrote:I'll submit that Canada is awesome. I have enjoyed visits there, My friends there are all good people.

As to the extradition thing - honestly, good. They shoudn't be granting amnesty to our soldiers who are deserters - we are supposed to be allies. Being a good ally isn't a one-way street, and for all the talk about what the US supposedly needs to do for the rest of the world to be a good friend and ally, the same is in reverse.

Let's say your friend picks a fight with someone - even if you don't think he should be in that fight, do you desert him? No one is saying that Canada has to be gung ho about the War on Terror, but giving sanctuary to US Army deserters just because of a War Policy isn't something a close ally and neighbor should do. I would expect the US to do the same for Canadian deserters.

I disagree. If I volunteer to put my life on the line for two years, who are you or the government to say..."well no one else wants the job so now you have to put your life on the line for 3 1/2 years." "And if you refuse you go to prison." It's America that's deserting the troops.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I disagree. If I volunteer to put my life on the line for two years, who are you or the government to say..."well no one else wants the job so now you have to put your life on the line for 3 1/2 years." "And if you refuse you go to prison." It's America that's deserting the troops.

You don't put your life on the line for two years. You know up front that this is subject to change, it is no mystery. It sucks, but it isn't "America deserting its troops."

If you aren't prepared to have your term extended if the military deems necessary, you shouldn't join the service. Sounds cold - but that is what it takes sadly.

I know some of them don't like the War, and I'd really rather not debate that again (what is done is done). But I don't want a soldier who is deserting because he doesn't like the politics of the Commander in Chief - Liberal or Conservative. I have a great deal of respect for our Troops, and part of that comes from their ability to put aside personal politics and fight for our country, whoever the President, whatever the battle.

A deserter, conversely, gets my scorn. If they weren't willing to put that kind of thing aside, they shouldn't have joined up.

Deadpool809 wrote:A deserter, conversely, gets my scorn. If they weren't willing to put that kind of thing aside, they shouldn't have joined up.

I just want to understand you point of view better.... Have you served? I have not.

Deadpool809 wrote:I have a great deal of respect for our Troops, and part of that comes from their ability to put aside personal politics and fight for our country, whoever the President, whatever the battle.

They only pledge to defend the Constitution. The one Bush has butchered. Really by that logic, they should be fighting him(sorry I'm a little too political).

Deadpool809 wrote:But I don't want a soldier who is deserting because he doesn't like the politics of the Commander in Chief - Liberal or Conservative.

And what if the president makes himself King? They aren't abandoning the same government they were originally serving, ya know?

Deadpool809 wrote:If you aren't prepared to have your term extended if the military deems necessary, you shouldn't join the service. Sounds cold - but that is what it takes sadly.

Stop Loss is wrong. No matter how you look at it. I read online that 40% of troops serving have some form of disorder related to service. But they can't be allowed to come home because we need the troops.

The real problem to me Is that they aren't fighing for the Constitution. They are fighting a war for profit. And one that the American people don't support. At this point their oath becomes indentured servitude.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I just want to understand you point of view better.... Have you served? I have not.

Have not. Tried - was rejected medically. Come from a military family.

Juan_Bottom wrote:They only pledge to defend the Constitution. The one Bush has butchered. Really by that logic, they should be fighting him(sorry I'm a little too political).

I have to reject that totally, because you lead with "Bush butchered the Constitution. He didn't. Sorry, but that just isn't the case. If there really was a case that Bush went to War unconstitutionally, he would be impeached. Despite the left salivating to do it, they clearly don't have a case for it, or it would have been done a long time ago.

You might not LIKE what he did, but until the checks and balances call it into question, then it is very much Constitutional.

Juan_Bottom wrote:And what if the president makes himself King? They aren't abandoning the same government they were originally serving, ya know?

A President can't just make himself King. That is a silly argument, and not one that applied here. It is still a government by and for the people.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Stop Loss is wrong. No matter how you look at it. I read online that 40% of troops serving have some form of disorder related to service. But they can't be allowed to come home because we need the troops.

The real problem to me Is that they aren't fighing for the Constitution. They are fighting a war for profit. And one that the American people don't support. At this point their oath becomes indentured servitude.

I disagree with that statement on many, many levels. Sadly I don't have the time to go into them all - gonna agree to disagree on that one. I will say that I don't think Stop Loss would be necessary if there wasn't such a negative attitude about joining the service in this country. It should be universally encouraged. Sadly, we live in such a wealthy, secure nation that some people forget the realities of the world and the need for a strong national defense (current war totally aside... please don't link it LOL), and thus equate the military with evil and promote it as such. A strong national defense is the #1 duty of the Federal Government per the Constitution... if we had maintained that as a priority post Reagan, I think we wouldn't have the problem we do now.

Deadpool809 wrote:I have to reject that totally, because you lead with "Bush butchered the Constitution. He didn't. Sorry, but that just isn't the case. If there really was a case that Bush went to War unconstitutionally, he would be impeached. Despite the left salivating to do it, they clearly don't have a case for it, or it would have been done a long time ago.

You might not LIKE what he did, but until the checks and balances call it into question, then it is very much Constitutional.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2682

I disagree. It is against the supreme law to us taxpayers to pay for propaganda against them. Everything Dennis Kucinich laid out.

Not counting the constitution, Bush and Cheny have a very long list of nations that they cannot travel to. Becuase they've(we've) broken international law. They'd be arrested.

Deadpool809 wrote:A President can't just make himself King. That is a silly argument, and not one that applied here.

I was being sarcastic, to prove a point.

Deadpool809 wrote:It is still a government by and for the people.

The people are overwelmingly against the war, and stop loss.

Deadpool809 wrote:Have not. Tried - was rejected medically. Come from a military family.

I refused to sign after seeing what was going on. It was always my plan to join the Marines. I was on first name basis with the recruiter. I was in High School during 911, but I didn't like what I was seeing after.... war for profit, like Vietnam. And that's not what I'm about.

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.infowars.com/?p=2682

I disagree. It is against the supreme law to us taxpayers to pay for propaganda against them. Everything Dennis Kucinich laid out.

Not counting the constitution, Bush and Cheny have a very long list of nations that they cannot travel to. Becuase they've(we've) broken international law. They'd be arrested.

Ummm... sorry man. That doesn't fly with me. Kucinich is a nutjob, and I say so kindly - his party doesn't even take him seriously. Just about everything in his articles are twisted, made up, or wild accusations. There is a reason this hasn't gotten very far - even in a Democratic Congress. Top to bottom that thing is bunk.

And we haven't broken International Law. That is a bunch of hogwash frankly.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The people are overwelmingly against the war, and stop loss.

Yet - they re-elected Bush. I don't think people are overwhelmingly against "the war." In fact, "The War" was over years ago. We are currently occupying Iraq. We faced similar dissent when we were occupying Germany post WWII during reconstruction, and suffered a lot of loss thanks to insurgency. But we didn't cut and run then, and we shouldn't now. No matter WHAT you thought of the reasons going in, you don't go into a country, dismantle its infastructure, and then walk away and leave the people to fend for yourselves. Now that we are there, we have a responsibility to be there until Iraq can take the reigns on their own. And they are close - even Obama is starting to waffle on his "We need to get out NOW" stance, since things are going so well there. To walk away now would be a disaster, and would be condemning innocents to something potentially worse than Hussein.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I refused to sign after seeing what was going on. It was always my plan to join the Marines. I was on first name basis with the recruiter. I was in High School during 911, but I didn't like what I was seeing after.... war for profit, like Vietnam. And that's not what I'm about.

I've got a number of years on you then... my first career was pretty well put to a stop because of 9-11. I can tell you that I think you should do a little research - and perhaps look to some sources not so savagely left-wing like Kucinich. We are not engaging in a "War for Profit" - that is some very radical propoganda. Not saying you should necessarily agree with me, but I think that most people, in an effort to break this partisain deadlock we have, really need to step back and look at their core political beliefs a little more closely. What is the Contitution, how should it be defined, what should the government's role be in the various levels, local to federal? I think it is a mistake to listen to the radicals like Michael Savage and Kuchinich, because in their eyes, everything their opposition does is EVIL and that just isn't the case.

There is no "War For Profit." Bush hasn't violated the Constitution (if you want to talk about that, let's talk about the Supreme Court doing the same thing), and we aren't "breaking International Law."

Through and through, we need to quit with the "other guys are EVIL" and talk about ideals. This War is a perfect example. Forget why we went there, and what you thought of it. What should we do now that we are there? What is the responsible thing? Up and walking away isn't it, not by a long-shot.

Bush's time is over. It makes no sense to keep bringing him into the debate. Time to move on.

Deadpool809 wrote: and we aren't "breaking International Law."

I don't know about that:

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/ArticleID/10452
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TOK403A.html

That's just dealing with Iraq/Afghanistan issue, we haven't even touched on wireless tapping and email interceptions...War = Less Liberty...

But in regards to the Army Deserters, they were volunteers and knew what they were doing. They weren't drafted like in Vietnam, plus I believe Canada is still fighting along side with us yet...so I think handing them over to American authorities is just.

"I disagree. It is against the supreme law to use taxpayers to pay for propaganda against them."

-my words.

Deadpool809 wrote:twisted, made up, or wild accusations.

Disagree!

Deadpool809 wrote:his party doesn't even take him seriously.

Which says more about his charactor than anything. The Dems and the Reps are the same party. We elect a Dem congress and somehow NOTHING has changed.

Deadpool809 wrote:There is a reason this hasn't gotten very far

President Cheny?

Deadpool809 wrote:And we haven't broken International Law. That is a bunch of hogwash frankly.

Oh good! At least you know exactly which laws I'm speaking of. Now if I got you to ues those same original definitions we signed treaty too, and not Bush's, I'm sure you'd agree with me.

Deadpool809 wrote:To walk away now would be a disaster, and would be condemning innocents to something potentially worse than Hussein.

And what of our own?

War for profit.

Deadpool809 wrote:Yet - they re-elected Bush. I don't think people are overwhelmingly against "the war." In fact, "The War" was over years ago. We are currently occupying Iraq. We faced similar dissent when we were occupying Germany post WWII during reconstruction,

I don't get this, are you saying the people are for the war, mixed together, or that they don't count because they originaly supported it?

The point is just that this is no longer a nation "for the people." We were tricked into Iraq, and probably Afgahnistan too. But now that we are there we're not allowed to leave?

That's right, Guantanamo Bay -- totally sanctioned by international law.

Heh - my Blood Pressure is too high for this

BUt we weren't "tricked" into Iraq. Iraq did support Al Quaeda. Iraq did have Al Quaeda training facilities there. Bin Laden himself declared Iraq to be the central battleground against us. Iraq DID have WMD programs and materials - heck just recently we were shipping gobs of Yellowcake out of there. Iraq repeatedly violated the treaty which ended the first Gulf War, which was all the "International" justification we needed to invade. The UN opposed it, because those in power in the UN were on the take from the Oil For Food program anyway. (We should withdraw from the UN for that matter, but that is another discussion).

Gitmo is not "illegal." The only accusations against the US regarding the camp stem from the AMMENDED Geneva Convention treaty, of which the United States is NOT a part of. We can't be held to a treaty we did not sign.

And yes - liberty is lost during war. It has been that way with every war we have ever fought. But this war - for the first time, the people sacrificed almost nothing. I actually don't begrudge watchdog groups for throwing red flags about "rights" we have lost. But, as with every war this nation has ever fought, we lose a little privacy and a little freedom. Thankfully, we have groups that will make sure we get it back when it is over. So I don't think the wiretapping was illegal at all - but it is something worth keeping a close eye on.

I think you have a very narrow view. We weren't tricked into anything. The Congress had access to the same information Bush did. We went in with our eyes opened - there was no "lying." And we can leave - when we finish putting the pieces of those countries we broke back together. It is the only responsible and humane way to proceed.

As to the parties - I totally agree. The reason I stopped being a Republican years ago - they became spineless do-nothings who PUSHED liberal agendas like te Prescription Drug Plan. I am more of a LIbertarian than a Conservative anyway... it is such a shame that my new party is run by whack-jobs

My rebuttel-


Are you a crackhead?

Juan_Bottom wrote:My rebuttel-

Are you a crackhead?

Not in the slightest. I am not sure what prompted that question. If it is my position, no - I am extremely well read, and don't get my opinions from radical propoganda sites.

If it is because I am a Libertarian... well, I can only explain that by saying my politics are that the Federal Government is bad, and should be limited to specifically enumerated fuctions in the Constitution. And it is better than the GOP

Deadpool809 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:My rebuttel-

Are you a crackhead?

Not in the slightest. I am not sure what prompted that question. If it is my position, no - I am extremely well read, and don't get my opinions from radical propoganda sites.

If it is because I am a Libertarian... well, I can only explain that by saying my politics are that the Federal Government is bad, and should be limited to specifically enumerated fuctions in the Constitution. And it is better than the GOP

AND your Libertarian??? You hold these views, and your a Libertarian???? You must be messing with me......
Crack-Head?