Draft Dodger Reunion - this summer in BC

[Enzo]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Serenity]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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...