Oh--We could cover this.

The problem is, there's bugger-all to discuss. When you sign up to be a soldier, you sign up to take orders. You can't say "Oh--may I be excused please? I didn't join to fight this war".

I rarely use the word "disgusted". Human behaviour is too interesting and varied, although the behaviours of certain presidents and their brothers tempt me greatly. But I am disgusted that the federal immigration authority would even countenance the idea that a deserter could get refugee status.

During Viet Nam, US deserters and draft dodgers were welcomed here, and I'm not against that. My issue is with desertion followed by some pretence at moral argument. The irony is that I'm also against the war due to the weakness of the moral case and the non-existence of a strategic case for it.

As a former soldier myself, I tend to believe that I'd rather have a blank file (ie. no-one) on my flank than an unwilling conscript. But this guy walked into the army, signed a paper saying he'd go fight if so ordered, and then jammed out.

So far, no problem. But instead of taking a principled stand and accepting that refusal to fight carries a penalty, he's trying to use a mechanism intended to help the victims of persecution get clear.

Another phrase I almost never use is: "Send 'em back where they came from."

The risk of being a participant in a war is inherent to a term of service as a soldier. They may pretty it up with veteran's benefits and free education, but in the end, you're cannon fodder. Most soldiers are aware this, and accept the consequences.