# Draft Dodger Reunion - this summer in BC



## muffin (23 Jun 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060523.wvietnam0523/BNStory/National/home

Reproduced in accordance with fair dealings provisions of the copyright laws:

*
Draft dodger reunion set for this summer in B.C.*

GREG JOYCE

Canadian Press

Vancouver — The statue and what it honoured — young Americans dodging the Vietnam War draft by coming to Canada — created an international kerfuffle two years ago and has since been shuffled between municipalities who found it too controversial.

But it now has a home.

The art will be housed in a private gallery in Nelson, B.C., and should be on view when a long-planned reunion of Vietnam War draft resisters — also known as draft dodgers — is held this summer.

Some organizers involved in the four-day Our Way Home Peace Event and Reunion in July were in Vancouver on Tuesday to show the media a clay likeness of the 2.7-metre bronze statue.

The statue depicts a Canadian welcoming with open arms two Americans.

“This piece is also coming forward at a time when there is terrific militarism in the world and it's showing Americans who came out of conscience, who took another path,” reunion organizer Isaac Romano said.

“The opportunity with this is for us to always remember that 35 years after the Vietnam War, there have been noted accomplishments (by the resisters) to Canadian life.”

The statue was initially slated to be put on public display in Nelson almost two years ago, not long after Mr. Romano moved to Nelson from Seattle. He was a Vietnam war resister.

Some veterans were offended and they got a sympathetic ear from the U.S. ambassador to Canada at the time, Paul Cellucci.

The City of Nelson initially supported the statue and reunion but withdrew its support in face of the controversy.

Earlier this month, reunion organizers announced the statue would be placed in the Doukhobor Village Museum in Castlegar, a half-hour drive from Nelson, but that city subsequently rejected the plan.

The reunion is still scheduled to be held at the Brilliant Cultural Centre in Castlegar, from July 6-9 with George McGovern, a former senator and presidential candidate, as keynote speaker.

Another former high-profile anti-war activist, Tom Hayden, is also speaking, said Mr. Romano.

“It will be a major peace event which will likely bring people from all over North America coming to Castlegar this summer for one of the most important peace events of our lifetime,” said Mr. Romano.

He defended the reunion as a way to honour not only the draft resister, but also the Canadians who welcomed them.

“Due to the militarism of the U.S., we likely will want to remember in Canada the role that Canadians played by the thousands in assisting those that came to Canada,” he said.

He said 2006 is also a “challenging time because of Canada's military activities in Afghanistan and the decision to take an offensive role.”

About 100,000 Americans came to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War, with about half eventually returning to the U.S. to take advantage of an amnesty provided by President Jimmy Carter, said Mr. Romano.

Sculptor Naomi Lewis said the statue should be viewed from Canadians' point of view.

“I see it from the Canadians' perspective, welcoming people in need and warmly giving them an avenue to find a safe home away from their concerns,” she said.


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 Jun 2006)

Just one more reason for people to complain about BC....   (sigh)


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2006)

nice place for a bunker-buster.

Oh, the wonderful irony if they were to be targeted by terrs!


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 Jun 2006)

Terrs?

Not familiar with that - you mean terrorists?  Is that a typo or a new abbreviation I havent seen?


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2006)

it's a very old abbreviation.


----------



## Enzo (23 Jun 2006)

I'm good with it. These guys didn't want to fight and they went to another country. Now they've given themselves a statue and they can have a love in around it. Power to 'em. It was a different situation in another time and it doesn't reflect today's reality. They can try to make a connection to militarism and the US (war on terror, etc.) but that really isn't the issue. So sit back, run naked through the woods of Nelson, channel Jerry Garcia if you can and smoke a fatty if that's your pleasure. Mind if I hang with your daughter Bud?


----------



## karl28 (23 Jun 2006)

"nice place for a bunker-buster."         

 I second you on that one Paracowboy


----------



## winchable (23 Jun 2006)

I don't know how they can draw a real comparison between Vietnam Draft Dodgers and those guys who come North nowdays.
The biggest difference being the draft,
Granted they both object to their generations' wars, but the "dodgers" of today signed up voluntarily for the military.

If anything, associating their cause with todays deserters in the face of perceived US militarism kills what sympathy they might have garnered.

I'm with Enzo, I don't care, they can have their drum circle and go back to teaching at UVic, I'm not playing their "look at me" game.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

People who left their country in its time of need.  Gathering in BC Canada.  I bet Sven Robinson shows up.  Hide your jewelry weakies!


----------



## Journeyman (23 Jun 2006)

Che said:
			
		

> I don't know how they can draw a real comparison between Vietnam Draft Dodgers and those guys who come North nowdays.



Do you mean, _these_ people who are heading north?  >

*THEY ARE HEADING FOR CANADA NOW*
_Manitoba Herald_, Canada 

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The actions of President Bush are prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly. 

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. 

"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?" 

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk." 

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. 

"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. "They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though." 

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races. 

In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s. 

"If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said. 

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?" 

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said. We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The President is determined to reach out," he said.

 ;D


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 Jun 2006)

;D  Good one!


----------



## m410 (23 Jun 2006)

I have no problem with draft dodgers.  Conscription is one of the more evil things governments have done.

Volunteers who desert, however, are beneath contempt.  We should be deporting any foreign non-conscript deserters we find in Canada.


----------



## orange.paint (23 Jun 2006)

Any way you put it they are still dirty flower throwing hippies.The same people who write CBC and make me sick everytime they do a story on our forces.Glad they chose BC....dont think they would have "fit in" in newfoundland. ;D


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

I still think we should send Sven Robinson   ;D


----------



## wotan (24 Jun 2006)

I wouldn't worry about it too much.  I mean, c'mon, you're expecting a draft dodger to SHOW UP?!?!?


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jun 2006)

As long as their ale is not on tap...


 :rofl:

Had to do that....

Hey BTW, do any of the former soldiers of the Reich that have emigrated to Canada hold a reunion?

Ooo I know sounds offside, but I am serious?

dileas

tess


----------



## Signalman150 (26 Jun 2006)

You know, it's funny Tess, but you reminded me of something.  Back in the late sixties my folks used to visit friends in Richmond BC. There was a kid down the block that I chummed with when we went to visit, and after a few visits I found out his dad had been in the Heer during WWII.  He emigrated to Canada in the early fifties I think, and married a Canadian girl.

I didn't get the sense that dad was some malevolent, sadistic automaton.  Aside fm the fact that he WAS a strict parent (no, not abusive, just strict) he seemed like any other "dad"--not withstanding a faint German accent. I was invited for supper one night, and the war came up.  This fellow talked very objectively about it, working hard to dispell some of the Hollywood crap about the German army. Even now I remember that I never had a sense that he was being an apologist, or trying to downplay the horrors of Nazism, he was just an ex soldier, talking about the army he'd served in.  

There were many German immigrants to Canada in the years after the war, and many must have been former soldiers. There can be no disputing the atrocities, the death camps, etc. etc. etc.  but I have never believed that the rank and file of the Wermacht were alot different from soldiers in any other army. They must feel the tug of comradship as much as any other soldier, not withstanding they were on the losing side. Who is to say that those ex-pat soldiers here in Canada shouldn't have reunions, or indeed perhaps that they don't?  Now you've got ME curious.  ???

And odd as it might sound, I'm more willing to accept a reunion of former "enemy" soldiers here in Canada than I would be toward this thing for draft-dodgers.  Sorry,  but if they were willing to pull the pin on the land of their birth in the face of trouble, I don't believe for a second they'll stick around when the going gets tough here. Running away from trouble is probably like committing any other crime: it's easier the second time.


----------



## paracowboy (26 Jun 2006)

personally, I know of a legion where a Luftwaffe pilot hangs out with his former enemies. They get drunk and tell great war stories.


----------



## ExSarge (27 Jun 2006)

As a Canadian who served in the American army and in Viet Nam I have no problems with Draft Dodgers. They, for whatever their reasons, made a decision and stuck to it. To turn your back on your country is no small thing. On the other hand, deserters get only my contempt. They swore an oath and they then broke that oath. Rather then serve in Viet Nam they ran, knowing that someone else would have to take their place. I can think of one CBC personality in the Toronto area that  served in the U.S. Army, was even promoted to Specialist 4 (Pay grade equivalent to  Cpl). When he received orders for Viet Nam he discovered he was "Anti War" and ran. Canada received him and rewarded him with a job in broadcasting! Draft Dodgers, OK at least they have the courage of their convictions. Deserters are cowards. If they did not want to serve in combat they could have refused and taken the consequences of their actions. Instead they ran. 

OK that's my rant for the day!


----------



## theoldyoungguy (27 Jun 2006)

draft dodgers and deserters, all the same to me. u run when your country calls on u? those people dont deserve any respect from anyone, the second you run is the second some other poor kid takes your place. You get called up, u suck it up, become a man and take one for the team.


----------



## Enzo (27 Jun 2006)

> As a Canadian who served in the American army and in Viet Nam I have no problems with Draft Dodgers. They, for whatever their reasons, made a decision and stuck to it. To turn your back on your country is no small thing.





			
				loyaleddie87 said:
			
		

> draft dodgers and deserters, all the same to me. u run when your country calls on u? those people dont deserve any respect from anyone, the second you run is the second some other poor kid takes your place. You get called up, u suck it up, become a man and take one for the team.



Two opinions. I'm biased towards the former and find myself shaking my head a bit at the naivety of the latter. Ed's eager and good to go, that's fine for him as he made a choice. The reason why conscription doesn't work is that the state makes the choice for the individual and that doesn't always mesh with that individuals plan, whatever it may be. Volunteer armies generally perform better due to the desire of the members to participate, it was their choice to join. Conscripts can and have fought very well in prior wars, but the belief in that war has to be factored in. WW2 vs. Vietnam, both conscripted armies for the US with very different outcomes. It has to be considered.

I especially appreciate the use of the words _"poor kid"_, for all too often with the draft that is the targeted demographic. If the system in place was 100% impartial, then there would be less concern over the draft, but the loopholes abound and all too often you'll find a higher percentage of the lower classes involved; ce la vie eh. So as with everything in life, it isn't as simple as sucking it up and it sometimes takes more courage to decide to break with the pack than to join it. What exactly does it take to "become" a man? Who decides?

People who fled the draft are not the same as deserters... period. Are dodgers honourable people; maybe some are, maybe some aren't. That's an individual quality. It's simply two different things and they shouldn't be grouped together.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Jun 2006)

> People who fled the draft are not the same as deserters... period. Are dodgers honourable people; maybe some are, maybe some aren't. That's an individual quality. It's simply two different things and they shouldn't be grouped together.




They deserted their country, when it called. 

They experienced the Freedom, up until the draft, provided by the blood of those that answered the call before them.

So yep, I do lump them together.  Period.

dileas

tees


----------



## paracowboy (27 Jun 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> They deserted their country, when it called.
> 
> They experienced the freedomn up until the draft provided by the blood of those that answered the call before them.
> 
> So yep, I do lump them together.  Period.


what he said.


----------



## Red 6 (27 Jun 2006)

When draft dodgers have reunions, what do the talk about? Doesn't the word "reunion" imply that you were together once before?


----------



## Serenity (28 Jun 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> As a Canadian who served in the American army and in Viet Nam I have no problems with Draft Dodgers. They, for whatever their reasons, made a decision and stuck to it. To turn your back on your country is no small thing. On the other hand, deserters get only my contempt. They swore an oath and they then broke that oath. Rather then serve in Viet Nam they ran, knowing that someone else would have to take their place.



I have to agree with this sentiment, both for the fact that it was written by someone who has a true point of reference and that it echoes what seems to be at the centre of this issue.  There is a fundmental difference between a Viet Nam Draft Dodger and a deserter.   

The concept of choosing to be a Conscientious Objector rather then a Deserter is a noble one.  To make a decision that honours principles should be applauded, not criticized.  But to go through the motions of serving your country, cost the military time and energy, gain the trust of your fellow soldiers just to abandon your post is pure cowardice.   

I confess to never understanding why Americans pride themselves on being the Land of the Free when it seems the opposite is true.  _Freedom of Speech.  Freedom of Movement.  Freedom to Congregate._  These are the banners the Americans wrap themselves in and use as the platform to alter the rest of the planet.  And yet, if one dares to exercise these supposed rights, he could very well find himself labeled a criminal.  As a conscientious objector to a war, what could be a greater example?


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Jun 2006)

> I confess to never understanding why Americans pride themselves on being the Land of the Free when it seems the opposite is true.  Freedom of Speech.  Freedom of Movement.  Freedom to Congregate.  These are the banners the Americans wrap themselves in and use as the platform to alter the rest of the planet.  And yet, if one dares to exercise these supposed rights, he could very well find himself labeled a criminal.  As a conscientious objector to a war, what could be a greater example?



Who earned them that right?

Conscientious Objector?  When it suits them.  They lived in an elected democratic society, that they chose to live an enjoy the freedoms above.  But when the nation asked to return the favour, they chose to bail.

It seems to me that Conscientious Objectors love to wrap themselves with the same blanket, only theirs is on a wee bit too tight, causing lack of oxygen to the head to remind them where they got that blanket in the first place.

There is to me no "fundamental" difference.

dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy (28 Jun 2006)

Serenity said:
			
		

> I confess to never understanding why Americans pride themselves on being the Land of the Free when it seems the opposite is true. _Freedom of Speech.  Freedom of Movement.  Freedom to Congregate._  These are the banners the Americans wrap themselves in and use as the platform to alter the rest of the planet.  And yet, if one dares to exercise these supposed rights, he could very well find himself labeled a criminal.  As a conscientious objector to a war, what could be a greater example?



examples! 
I can offer many to dispute, the most recent: the parade of illegal immigrants. These are criminals under the law, yet they were permitted to parade in the thousands in every city across the land, voicing their concerns. Sounds a lot like "Freedom of Speech.  Freedom of Movement.  Freedom to Congregate" to me.

Deserters are NOT conscientious objectors, nor are draft dodgers. Your argument is specious at best. Get your facts straight. If you have nothing better to do with your time than "bash America", go elsewhere to do it. If showing some sort of inferiority complex was not your intent, I'd suggest you clarify.


----------



## Red 6 (28 Jun 2006)

Citizens of every free nation have rights that are considered to be inalienable. But, they also have duties and responsibilities. No country anywhere has complete freedom to do whatever you want. If the US is such a lousy place, why do immigrants from around the world keep coming? The Vietnam War was (and continues to be) an incredibly painful chapter in US history and I doubt the scars will ever heal. In my opinion, the antiwar movement was primarily motivated by self-interest due to the draft. I believe the current war in Iraq has had so little organized opposition due to the fact that the US armed forces haven't resorted to the draft. If Americans voted with their feet to shirk their duty, they shouldn't expect sympathy. 

I know my earlier post was a little humorous but this is a serious topic, especially since there are some deserters from the armed forces who have gone to Canada in the past few years to avoid serving. I guess if I had to rank it, I'd feel less anger at a draft dodger. For a deserter, I have nothing but scorn, in particular for someone who volunteered and then ran from their duties.


----------



## tingbudong (28 Jun 2006)

Place me in the group that feels there is a distinct difference between an individual who chooses to avoid a forced role in the armed forces (conscription, draft, selective service or whatever terminology is in vogue) and an individual who volunteers and signs a contract for a stipulated number of years, reaps heaps of benefits and decides to break the contract over a difference of opinion.  With maybe the exception of working for the tobacco industry (or maybe Monsanto) Military service is unique in the sense that a person has a fairly clear sense before joining that their responsibilities os a soldier may include being expected to engage in some nastiness (even if it is disposing of terrorist scum in an timely and efficient manner) which might possibly infringe on their personal code of ethics, whatever those ethics may be.  I don't believe a volunteer is in any position to claim that they did not think that they would be required to fight as they are provided with adequate information, and more importantly, _a choice_.  A choice some one who is pressed, conscripted or drafted, does not have. 

Personally, I feel that _choice_ (and no, I didn't pull this from the Matrix) is one of the pillars of a liberal democracy.  Without it, such a country is really no better than those it is fighting against.  I'll admit probably don't buy into nationalism as strongly as some posters here (personally despise those damn _I am Canadian commercials_). It could be because I'm too young, or that it is because my generation is a bunch of spineless losers who never had to fight for anything.  I like to think of it as something else though.  I believe in fighting for the freedom and the democracy we enjoy in Canada, but feel that within such freedoms one has the right to question and critique, write and talk and more importantly, choose.  If one of those is taken away, I don't believe I would want to fight to defend my country, when they have chosen to not respect, the rights which they gave me, and which previous people had died for.  

However, you sign, you better be prepared to dine.  You made a choice, under zero pressure (I don't really believe in socio-economic factors...people still have a choice).  Those war resistors, what's his name, Hinchcliff?(sp.) et al...pack those guys off to their respective units.  They are an embarrasment.  They are quitters, and the fact that they had enough nerve to tie up or system and tax dollars applying for asylum...well...I'm a little bit more than upset.  Everyday there are real refugees and people trying to escape real abuse and torture in real un-free and oppressive regimes...and who do they have standing in front of them at the immigration office...a bunch of 1st world losers. 

So I believe that there is a difference.


----------



## ExSarge (28 Jun 2006)

Just wanted to clarify my earlier post. Although I can understand and respect the position of someone who has a moral objection to war and as a result becomes a draft dodger. I don't want them immigrating here. If you are not prepared to stand up and fight for your country of birth, whether that fight is a member of the Armed Forces or as someone fighting to bring social change, why would you fight for Canada? No let them go somewhere else! Deserters, it's an embarrassment that we waste time listening to refuge claims from this scum. The fact that one was a member of my old unit sickens me!


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Jun 2006)

These deserters bother me cause they joined the US Army..cause the Army offered free Schooling and money for staying in. Now that the forces say hey we are needing you for what we paid for...they don't want to play. Why would you even join the forces if you never want to deploy? Sad really.


----------



## 54hawken (28 Jun 2006)

Honouring Draft Dodgers in BC , well I grew up in the Okanagan and I remember the so called draft dodgers and I remember how pissed my dad was every time he laid his eyes on them ! He thought they were a strain on our community cause they expected everything school, health care the works and a majority of the Dodgers were dodging taxes too!   This was the 70s and his mates were farmers and loggers who built the Interior of BC with hard work not the Dodgers!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Jun 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> Why would you even join the forces if you never want to deploy?



If you disagree with the reason for the deployment. Not defending them, just sayin'.  

I won't trot out the contentious comparison about refusing to deploy to Auschwitz, so here's something closer to home - if a Canadian skipped out on his Reg Force contract because he didn't want to participate in chemical testing in Suffield, how should we feel about that today?

Personally, I think deployment to Vietnam was not an unreasonable expectation of US military service personnel, and despite the fact the war was poorly managed and eventually lost, I think the sacrifices there were valid. Perhaps not worth the cost, but I can discern a purpose for it. And wouldn't exactly put a draft dodger from that conflict in the same league I would Claus von Stauffenberg. But surely we can agree that the sense of national imperative or lack of same may have confused a 19 year old kid. Dunno, I think it's a tougher call than someone skipping out during the Second World War.


----------



## ExSarge (28 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> If you disagree with the reason for the deployment. Not defending them, just sayin'.





The cornerstone of any military is discipline. It's the first thing you are taught. No soldier has the right to pick and choose what order to obey, including deployment orders. There is of course an alternative, they can step up and clearly state "I refuse the order based on (insert reason)" and accept the consequences. Most Armies have mechanisms in place to separate soldiers from duty who decide a military career is not for them. Again the time to make this move is before receiving deployment orders. As a Paratrooper I had the option to terminate my jump status at any time, prior to being manifested for a jump. Once the manifest was published it was a legally binding order carrying the same weight in law. To refuse to jump at that point opened a person to the full weight of the UCMJ. I, like all paratroopers knew and understood that. Just as all soldiers know, or should know, that to refuse a movemet order is a breach of discipline and a court martial offence.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Jun 2006)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> The cornerstone of any military is discipline. It's the first thing you are taught. No soldier has the right to pick and choose what order to obey, including deployment orders. There is of course an alternative, they can step up and clearly state "I refuse the order based on (insert reason)" and accept the consequences.



heh....I keep forgetting that. Yes, that's been discussed on the board also in several threads, and you're right, of course. Running away and taking responibility by refusing something are two different things.


----------



## FastEddy (28 Jun 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> Conscripts can and have fought very well in prior wars, but the belief in that war has to be factored in. WW2 vs. Vietnam, both conscripted armies for the US with very different outcomes. It has to be considered..
> 
> What exactly does it take to "become" a man? Who decide
> 
> People who fled the draft are not the same as deserters... period. Are dodgers honourable people; maybe some are, maybe some aren't. That's an individual quality. It's simply two different things and they shouldn't be grouped together.







Ans. 1 Maybe if we had Nuked them the outcome might have been different also.

Ans. 2 "Balls".

Ans. 3 A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.

Conclusion, they are still all "CRAP".


----------



## Enzo (28 Jun 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Ans. 1 Maybe if we had Nuked them the outcome might have been different also.
> 
> Ans. 2 "Balls".
> 
> ...



I get the impression that this is a black and white issue for you. I'm not going to touch upon the "nuking" subject with a 20' pole. Aside from that, I find that this topic may have touched upon serious emotions within some people and I'm curious as to why.

*draft dodger - a person who has avoided compulsory military service.
deserter - a member of the armed forces who deserts.*

I've been looking at the definitions for these two terms for some time now as I think about what I'd like to say. I'm trying to arrive at an understanding, for aside from the reprehensibility of a deserters actions; how it affects those who he leaves behind as they are abandoned. I'm curious at the connections between these two that can bring about such anger. Is it the act of fleeing? That an individual takes it upon themselves to skedaddle, leaving others to take their place? This is viewed with contempt and brings about the anger, regardless of the specifics. Is there something more to this? The lack of honour? A lack of patriotism? A lack of courage or a sense of duty? There seems to be a feeling of resentment as well; that others do while these individuals feed from their sacrifices, etc.

I'm finding it difficult to play devils advocate, for as I think about conscientious objectors, I now seem to be of two minds from my previous posts. Have conscientious objectors not been useful in non-combat roles? What of the medics that refused to carry arms, yet saved many lives. Ambulance drivers and ammunition transporters who braved fire for their mates, etc. What of the homefront, many industries still require manpower and expertise, those that couldn't fight, worked, etc. The problem there is, these people not only had the courage to enlist, but they maintained the courage to live within their comfort zones and found ways to do so that made it possible to conform. Compromise, is that the key? Those who fled from service (prior to enlistment) therefore did not give themselves a chance to perform and took the easy way out. Is this also a connection to the deserter... selfishness?

I originally found this thread humourous and didn't give it much thought. Then the emotions raised brought me to the technicalities as a counterpoint. Now, I'm finding that this isn't quite as simple as I originally believed it would be. Emotion is in conflict with the technical, and I find that to be perplexing.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Jun 2006)

you're all fucked up like a soup sandwich, my friend. You keep using the words "Conscientious Objector" and "Draft Dodger" synonymously. They are not the same thing. Conscientious Objectors serve in the military when drafted, they simply don't carry arms. They serve as stretcher bearers, ammo bearers, pot wallopers, etc, to free up fighting men. Some refuse to Serve at all, and go to jail, or face other sanctions. But, they take a stand. They take a stand for their principles, and perform their Duty simultaneously. I have nothing but respect for them.

A draft dodger flees, rather than take a stand. They accept every privilige and Right their nation provides them, but refuse to perform their Duty, or accept their responsibilites. They are cowards.

A deserter flees after agreeing to serve, leaving his comrades in the lurch. They are cowards.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you're all ****ed up like a soup sandwich, my friend. You keep using the words "Conscientious Objector" and "Draft Dodger" synonymously. They are not the same thing. Conscientious Objectors serve in the military when drafted, they simply don't carry arms. They serve as stretcher bearers, ammo bearers, pot wallopers, etc, to free up fighting men. Some refuse to Serve at all, and go to jail, or face other sanctions. But, they take a stand. They take a stand for their principles, and perform their Duty simultaneously. I have nothing but respect for them.
> 
> A draft dodger flees, rather than take a stand. They accept every privilige and Right their nation provides them, but refuse to perform their Duty, or accept their responsibilites. They are cowards.
> 
> A deserter flees after agreeing to serve, leaving his comrades in the lurch. They are cowards.



Written much better than I could have ever tried, even after a few posts in this thread.

dileas

tess


----------



## Enzo (29 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you're all ****ed up like a soup sandwich, my friend. You keep using the words "Conscientious Objector" and "Draft Dodger" synonymously. They are not the same thing. Conscientious Objectors serve in the military when drafted, they simply don't carry arms. They serve as stretcher bearers, ammo bearers, pot wallopers, etc, to free up fighting men. Some refuse to Serve at all, and go to jail, or face other sanctions. But, they take a stand. They take a stand for their principles, and perform their Duty simultaneously. I have nothing but respect for them.
> 
> A draft dodger flees, rather than take a stand. They accept every privilige and Right their nation provides them, but refuse to perform their Duty, or accept their responsibilites. They are cowards.
> 
> A deserter flees after agreeing to serve, leaving his comrades in the lurch. They are cowards.



That works for me, I appreciate your taking the time to illuminate a matter that was eluding me Para and this basically covers it I'd say. I viewed this as a legal issue at first; one who signed a contract and deserted vs. an individual who refused to participate when called upon. The difference is that those who refused and remained to accept the consequences are not to be compared to those who fled. I was confusing the _objectors_ with the _dodgers_, I believe my prior post was leading me to that conclusion. I now see as you posted, that an objector stands by his convictions and either finds a way to serve or accepts the consequences for his actions, while the dodger flees. Therein lies the contempt.

To be honest, I've never given any of this much thought, it doesn't fall within my personal psyche and feels almost alien. When I think of the term _draft dodger_, I think of those who left the US over the draft for Vietnam. I've never researched (or even contemplated) any Canadians who refused conscription in the past. I recall some issue about it for areas of the nation, but its rudimentary for me at best. All the time I've spent studying military history, and I find myself deficient on all of this.

Recently I was in San Francisco and I went to Alcatraz Island. I was surprised by what I discovered at the facility. First, it was much smaller than I expected (what isn't it life) and secondly, the inmates who populated the prison, some were a surprise. When the island was a military prison from 1850-1933, it housed many conscientious objectors during WW1. Due to their refusal to obey the rules of the prison, some were housed in D block (solitary) and spent time in the _dungeons_ located in the basement, etc. That surprised me, a prison designed to house the most notorious criminals and it was partially populated by those whose offence was to refuse to serve. A different time and something that might not be acceptable today.

So there it is, I allowed personal mores to interefere with my perceptions. I think I can move beyond this topic for now. Cheers...


----------



## M Feetham (29 Jun 2006)

I've read all the posts adn have to agree, emotions are running very high on this one. My two cents worth is that if you vlunteer to serve, whatever country your are from, part of  the requirment of service is to no longer have political alliances. You also pretty much agree not to have any type of political or social opinion. Service requires that even if you don't agree with the decisions of your superiors/government, you still obey the orders that are passed down the COC. The only time you have the right to refuse is when those orders are unlawfull. 
I have to agree with the others who are of the mind that deserters and dodgers are cowards. If you run someone else takes your spot, simple as that. You might as well shoot them yourself for all the difference it makes. 
Some people may not agree, and hell, I may even be talking out my a$$, but that's my take on it.
Marc


----------



## ExSarge (29 Jun 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> You also pretty much agree not to have any type of political or social opinion.
> Marc




Although I agree with the intent of your post I have to take exception to the above. A member of the Military must be politically and socially aware. You are right in that they may not act on these believes WHILE IN UNIFORM, or give the impression in any other way that their support is officially sanctioned. The first line of defence of any democracy is an informed aware citizenry and that includes its military.


----------



## Signalman150 (29 Jun 2006)

For Enzo -- reference message number 39

Just to clarify.  I've been to Alcatraz a couple of times, (as a visitor mind you: I'm neither that old or that larcenous).  Alcatraz was originally a MILITARY PRISON, not civilian.  Indeed it was built by servicemen who were prisoners, sort like like building your own gallows

Your message seemed to suggest that you thought the draft dodgers/contientious objectors were being held in solitary inside a civilian prision.  Such was not the case. Sorry just being pedantic.


----------



## Enzo (29 Jun 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> I've read all the posts adn have to agree, emotions are running very high on this one. My two cents worth is that if you vlunteer to serve, whatever country your are from, part of  the requirment of service is to no longer have political alliances. You also pretty much agree not to have any type of political or social opinion. Service requires that even if you don't agree with the decisions of your superiors/government, you still obey the orders that are passed down the COC. The only time you have the right to refuse is when those orders are unlawfull.



I don't have a reference for this, it's off the top of my head and therefore could be suspect. I seem to recall a German general speaking after the end of WW2 and he commented on how the German military allowed things to happen as they did. He was of the opinion that the German military was an organization that prided itself on its professionalism and they did not see the value of being involved in politics. He later changed his opinion about that and mused aloud that maybe they should have taken an interest in politics in the 1930's. 

I'm going to see if I can't validate this with a reference. For now, it's just what I recall as I said.



			
				Signalman150 said:
			
		

> For Enzo -- reference message number 39
> 
> Just to clarify.  I've been to Alcatraz a couple of times, (as a visitor mind you: I'm neither that old or that larcenous).  Alcatraz was originally a MILITARY PRISON, not civilian.  Indeed it was built by servicemen who were prisoners, sort like like building your own gallows
> 
> Your message seemed to suggest that you thought the draft dodgers/contientious objectors were being held in solitary inside a civilian prision.  Such was not the case. Sorry just being pedantic.



No worries. I clearly said: 





> When the island was a military prison from 1850-1933, it housed many conscientious objectors during WW1.



Taken from the following website:


> Later it was a disciplinary barracks for military prisoners, a prison for recalcitrant Indians, and then a P.O. W. facility for Spanish American Philippines Islands prisoners and World War 1 conscientious objectors.


http://www.militarymuseum.org/Alcatraz.html

While there, the basement was closed, but we were having a discussion with a park warden who was more than happy to oblige my dark side. It seems that there was a section of the basement with 3 cells that were literally 100% dark, very cold, etc. This was used for a long time, well past the point where the prison _reformed_ of course. These were referred to as the dungeons. Upon my return home, a program on the History channel aired entitled: _The Dungeons of Alcatraz_ and it built upon what was learned onsite. There was an objector (name forgotten) who was housed in the prison along with ~100 others during WW1, he was there from 1919-1921(22?) and as he did not cooperate with the guards at first, he ended up spending a fair amount of time down there (his prison # was found etched into a wall along with many others) although the warden (a man well known for his views on reform) was not supposed to be using the facility as such, etc. As a side note, this man *DID* cooperate after that and was released in the early 20s without further conflict with the authorities.

Alcatraz was intended to be the prison to house the worst of the worst and I've no problem with that, a place where you couldn't escape and hope went with it. I'm just surprised that the objectors were sent there, seems a bit much to have people who espouse nonviolence and peace to be incarcerated with men who were killers, rapists, etc. Then again, I notice from the above that political prisoners (POWs, recalcitrant Indians, etc.) seemed to be in vogue for awhile and that maybe the message of _abandon all hope ye_ was intended to act as a warning to dissuade those who may consider following in that path; for those whose views differed from the state was intentional.


----------



## Scratch_043 (29 Jun 2006)

I wonder if the American LEOs wouldn't mind the address?


----------



## M Feetham (30 Jun 2006)

EX Sarge,
What I meant was that we are not supposed to openly support any political party by attending rallies and such, yes we are allowed to vote and yes we should be aware of political happenings. I will try and find the regs on this as I am not sure of the exact wording. Sorry if i didn't say it clearly. Working on it.
Marc


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you're all ****ed up like a soup sandwich, my friend. You keep using the words "Conscientious Objector" and "Draft Dodger" synonymously. They are not the same thing. Conscientious Objectors serve in the military when drafted, they simply don't carry arms. They serve as stretcher bearers, ammo bearers, pot wallopers, etc, to free up fighting men. Some refuse to Serve at all, and go to jail, or face other sanctions. But, they take a stand. They take a stand for their principles, and perform their Duty simultaneously. I have nothing but respect for them.
> 
> A draft dodger flees, rather than take a stand. They accept every privilige and Right their nation provides them, but refuse to perform their Duty, or accept their responsibilites. They are cowards.
> 
> A deserter flees after agreeing to serve, leaving his comrades in the lurch. They are cowards.


+100%.  Especially with regards to the Conscientious Objectors, or anyone else who says "Not me.  I refuse, but in deferrence to the rule of law, I shall stand by my decision and accept the consequences for it."  That takes cohones.  Draft Dodgers are perhaps, maybe, a step above a deserter (case by case, naturally).  Instead of dodging the draft, they could say "Due to my principles of _x_ (whatever that is), I refuse to take part in the killing of other humans.  I do, however, believe in serving my society, so instead of taking up arms, I shall take up a spatula, stethoscope, whatever, and aid my fellow citizens in other ways."


----------



## Red 6 (30 Jun 2006)

There have been some idiot "draft resisters" in the US over the past year or so. These are guys who refuse to register with Selective Service and try to make a big deal out of it. YAWN. They get two seconds in the local press and then the federal government cuts of their student loans. You don't want to register for the draft, a program that's not in use, fine. Go get a job in McDonalds and stay there.


----------



## M Feetham (30 Jun 2006)

For EX Sarge and any one else who is interested the regs applying to political affiliation is as follows. QR&O's 19.44, Para 7. It states among other things that members of the regular force shall not be affiliated with any political party or canvass for a political party. There is more in the order so if you can read up on it.
Marc


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2006)

Well summed up....

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*No pride in harbouring cowards from U.S.*
Ian Robinson, Calgary Sun, 16 Jul 06
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Robinson_Ian/2006/07/16/1687426-sun.html

Aw, it must have been such a beautiful moment. 

There was a conference of Vietnam-era draft dodgers and deserters in B.C. last weekend, coming together after all these years to celebrate their deep-seated courage in avoiding service in the Vietnam war by coming to Canada. 

They unveiled a statue showing a Canadian welcoming two fleeing Americans with open arms. 

The sculpture was originally to have found a home in a municipal setting, but the national uproar it touched off sees it now in a private gallery in Nelson. 

I think the fuss would have been more muted had the statue perhaps better reflected the reality of those times. 

Shoulda been a chicken hiding behind a beaver. 

Yep. A beautiful moment. That is if you were born without the capacity to feel shame. 

Let's get something clear here. 

Vietnam was a moral war. 

A bunch of folks written off at the time as loonies by the left predicted that if South Vietnam fell it would become a brutal Communist dictatorship that would herd dissidents into concentration camps, that other south Asian nations would also fall. 

Well, after Saigon fell, those predictions came true. Life in Vietnam, particularly for ethnic Chinese, became so horrific that it gave birth to the boat people, who were thousands of desperate souls who crammed themselves and their children into leaky boats and cast themselves into the ocean to get away from the monsters who'd "liberated" their homeland. 

They became fodder for sharks and pirates, but it was worth the risk to get out of yet another "people's democratic republic" under a red flag. 

Another Communist, Pol Pot, who conquered Cambodia, was worse. He killed off millions of his own countrymen; their skulls are still heaped in pyramids around that nation. 

After the war, North Vietnamese leaders admitted they'd been defeated militarily, but that was irrelevant. The real war was won in the streets of America. 

In a very real sense, every U.S. draft dodger and deserter helped consign the millions who suffered and died under south Asian communism to their fate. 

There's also a difference between taking a principled stand against a war or government policy and running away like a girlie-man. 

Muhammad Ali opposed the Vietnam War and refused to be drafted. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. His career was ruined, he was stripped of his title and couldn't return to the ring until his appeal was upheld. 

He took a risk and prevailed ... and would have gone to prison for what he believed in. 

Henry David Thoreau, one of the patron saints of the left, quit paying the Massachusetts poll tax to protest southern slavery. He went to jail. Somebody paid his fine and when his jailers went to free him, he told them no one had the moral right to do that, and that he wanted to stay in jail. 

The jailer threw him out anyway but it all worked out for Thoreau anyway. He got a book out of it, called Civil Disobedience. 

The discredited usual suspects of the Sixties turned up for the B.C. event. The aging George McGovern, who ran on a peace-at-any-price platform against Richard Nixon and had his butt handed to him, gave a speech in which he said the war in Iraq is the new Vietnam. He also said, "I always appreciated the generosity and imagination of Canada... I think history will be on the side of the Canadians." 

Um, no. This Canadian is deeply embarrassed. 

Tom Hayden, the former Mrs. Jane Fonda, said Canadians shouldn't worry about alienating the U.S. by harbouring the current, tiny stream of deserters from the American military (none of whom, by the way, were drafted). After all, we survived giving safe haven to the last generation of U.S. cowards. 

"The problem here is that Harper and Bush are ideological bedfellows," Hayden said. 

He said this as Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying side-by-side with Americans in Afghanistan against the Taliban, the cradle of modern Islamofascist terrorism. 

This is a guy whose wife, when her nation was at war with North Vietnam, travelled there, was photographed sitting smiling on an anti-aircraft gun aimed at her countrymen, and told the world that the North Vietnamese were treating their U.S. prisoners well. 

Tell that to Senator John McCain, who still can't raise his arms above his shoulders because of the torture he endured at their hands. 

These losers can spend the rest of their lives justifying their simultaneously traitorous and cowardly actions. 

History will judge them far more harshly, I think, than they can even imagine.


----------

