Jump to content

waldo

Member
  • Posts

    17,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by waldo

  1. If you read the R2P report, you could support the fundamental idea of removing Saddam from power.

    not clear that his support was based on R2P or that he accepts R2P as a legitimization for the Iraq invasion:

    "Ignatieff said that the R2P doctrine was never invoked to justify the Iraq War in 2003. Instead, the invasion was justified on grounds that Saddam Hussein possed weapons of mass destruction, later proven to be untrue. Ignatieff said he supported the Iraq Invasion because of Hussein’s gross abuse of the UN Oil-for-Food program and history of genocide.

    “The parable [of the] lesson,” Ignatieff explained, “is that Iraq was a big mistake.” He highlighted that even if the Bush administration did use R2P to legitimize the invasion of Iraq, it did not justify intervening after the fact. The key idea in R2P is that harm is “happening” or “imminent.” Under these definitions, R2P could never have been used to justify invading Iraq."

    ? R2P as a basis for the Iraq war/invasion ?

  2. Ignatieff has recanted his initial support many times - this NY Times article says it all: Getting Iraq Wrong

    oh my - imagine a politician actually admitting mistakes in judgment

    The fact that the man had no courage to stand up against the war is more important then his position to run away from a disaster zone after the fact.

    He choose to be with Bush and Harper.

    that list of those who initially stood up against the war is quite short. How much longer is the list of those willing to acknowledge a mistake in judgment? Ignatieff eloquently and candidly speaks to his failing. Many haven't... and never will. But you are correct and I wholeheartedly endorse your recognition of Chretien's courage in standing up against Bush and the farcical Coalition of the Willing.

  3. Then why is your beloved Iggy supporting it?

    Precisely the trap I was setting, hahaha, nice. I wouldn't expect a response, maybe he'll try to blame PM Harper in some fashion.

    you don't need to accept or acknowledge the Ignatieff/Liberal support - but you should acknowledge your alternate preference for an election.

    your preference for an election that would negate the severity of the economic time and highlight your displeasure with the Conservative budget spending levels. A preference that would ignore stimulus attempts to presume to come to the aid of the thousands of Canadians that have lost their jobs and those who will soon follow. A preference that would prevent leveraging the most desirable infrastructure construction period... for an election that most analysts suggest would only result in a returned minority (for either party). Yes, you should acknowledge your alternate preference for an election over any 'immediate' gains for Canadians.

  4. For someone with supposed superiour credentials and intellect, after hearing Iggy speak a few times - I am disappointed in his approach - his tone --- his obvious dishonesty and second rate play acting -- He is weak! His voice is that of a girly acedemic and that of a man with no real old fashioned manhood to speak of..What say you? Were you expecting something more dynamic after the great build up? The guy strikes me as a well versed non-entity --- Is this what we have to look forward too?

    is it that difficult for you to provide the foundation for your disappointment? You know - something beyond a feeble attempt to demean his credentials and intellect balanced against the shallowness of interpreted tone, questioning manhood and catch phrases?

    what obvious dishonesty?

  5. Besides did we really expect more from someone with such great foresight as to base his entire political career on the invasion of Iraq?

    pfffft

    surely we don't need to revisit the lies that predicated the invasion - the lies that pulled millions of Americans into initially accepting the invasion - the same lies that provided the rationale for many of the world's key profile politicians and leading analysts and media commentators. Eventually the truth came forward. Ignatieff has recanted his initial support many times - this NY Times article says it all:

    Getting Iraq Wrong

    oh my - imagine a politician actually admitting mistakes in judgement

  6. So why a week and half later did Harper risk the 10 million that was going to get them out of debt and give them cash in hand? He knew he wouldn't have to. He had no intention of taking it away but knew that the opposition would react. They did. It became the biggest issue in the update, concealing what should have been the biggest issue in the update. The fact that we were already in a deficit buried in the 'proposed' selling off of Canadian assets.

    Why would they cave so quickly? Come on. When does Harper cave as quickly as he did over this isssue? Very clever. The news of the day was 'political welfare' and the media ran with it. We've become a nation of pawns waiting for cheap political tricks and media spin to do our thinking for us.

    You won't get Harper to take away that $ 1.95 for anything. His party would throw him out so fast his head would spin. He knew what he was doing. Sadly, you didn't.

    wag the dog? Are the CONS that cagey/manipulative - say it ain't so!

    such an overblown trumped up piece of minutia by the "how dare they use my $1.95 tax dollar for a party I don't support" gang - aided and abetted by a lack of investigative journalism (see weak mainstream media)

  7. Yes, we're all aware that Liberal misuse and abuse of the committee system, basically turning every committee into nothing more than a propaganda organ to try and heap abuse on the government helped lead to the last election. There's no need to remind us.

    huh! say what?

    yes, there certainly were committee level influences at play. Interesting how some quickly (conveniently) forget their own monkey wrench gangs committee 'obstruction handbook' Harper's Committee Obstruction Handbook

    oh yes - there certainly was dysfunctional Parliament Steve!

  8. Barack Obama has been on the job for only two days now, but his policies and pronouncements regarding detainees, the Middle East, foreign policy, etc. are so at odds with the policies of Stephen Harper that I wonder if Stephen Harper has been made politically extinct by Barack Obama.

    I suspect that the time of politicians like Stephen Harper and the people who share his values has passed.

    it's broader than specific policies and pronouncements - the end of the so-called Conservative era. Definitely, time passed.

    John Howard - gone

    the Shrub - just gone

    Harper - going, soon to be gone

  9. Hrm, more people with nothing better to do. The Tories are busy with the business of running a nation that covers three coasts, it doesn't end east of Manitoba as some would believe. The Tories are busy working on behalf of all Canadians and don't have the luxury of as much free time as the opposition seems to have.

    good to know, good to know - they're simply too busy during the perogy parliament period. I trust this will certainly put to rest any further comments concerning Harper gag orders.

  10. it's most revealing to read the peacock-strutting, chest pumping, bravado championing types throw the coward label towards the American Iraq war resisters. Clearly, they must also be prepared to, in turn, throw the same coward label toward Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status. Clearly - the confirmations of same await - is that the case - is that your extended position, all you peacock-strutters, you chest pumpers? Are you labeling Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status - cowards?

    Yes
    Not to mention stupid...

    Great – a couple of peacock strutting, chest thumpers came forward.

    So, you’re troubled with Conscientious Objection (CO) overall, regardless if Canadian or American military personnel are involved. We can now recognize your more complete profiles that stand against religious, moral or ethical positions that might cause individuals to seek CO status. We can also more completely recognize your complete lack of compassion as demonstrated by your futile posturing (nee blustering) attempts to beak off about honor, cowardice and intellect.

  11. the Canadian military does not recognize it’s active members, those seeking conscientious objector status, as “law breakers”, as “oath breakers” (your terms) – and yet you would so label the American Iraq war resisters.
    First off, these are Americans, not canadians....

    Secondly, these aren't people who have asked to be releases, they deserted, therefore they are law breakers..

    and finally if they were Canadians, the canadian position would not apply to them

    To be a CO you must be opposed to war, not just the Iraq war....it would seem that someone who willingly volunteers to join an armed force would have a hard time convincing a board they are opposed to ALL WAR...

    :lol::lol:

    clearly, the obtuse need help in reading comprehension: the described conscientious objector eligibility criteria - for active Canadian Forces members is => a CF member has a sincerely held objection to participation in:

    * war or armed conflict in general; or

    * the bearing and use of arms as a requirement of service in the CF.

    your premise is that this eligibility criteria can never be met by any CF member - because, as you state, "someone who willingly volunteers to join an armed force would have a hard time convincing a board they are opposed to ALL WAR". You also appear clairvoyant to be able to ascertain that these so-called American Iraq war resisters, as described conscientious objectors, object narrowly and singularly to only the Iraq war.

    it's most revealing to read the peacock-strutting, chest pumping, bravado championing types throw the coward label towards the American Iraq war resisters. Clearly, they must also be prepared to, in turn, throw the same coward label toward Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status. Clearly - the confirmations of same await - is that the case - is that your extended position, all you peacock-strutters, you chest pumpers? Are you labeling Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status - cowards?

  12. They are cowards because they signed up for the US military and think they should not face any penalties for breaking the contract that they willingly signed. As I said, if they had any honour they would do the time and accept the dishonourable discharge. Better people than them have spent much more time in jail standing up for what they believed in so it is not too much to expect from someone claiming they are making sacrifices for what the believe in.

    is there a double standard you're willing to accept for active Canadian military personnel who seek conscientious objector status? Certainly the Canadian military has provisions for handling personnel in this regard - one's that don't include your dishonor labeling, that don't include your jail time.

    DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection

    some of these American war resisters have attempted to seek conscientious objector status in their American military - some have attempted to seek non-combat assignments while staying in the American military. Of course, their requests have been denied.

  13. If these American deserters may find some sense of personal honor while serving a short sentence or living their entire lives branded as cowards, that's great. As for the rest of any such comparisons to COs in Canada, it's just to satisfy the collective Canadian neurosis about the war in Iraq. The deserters are just proxies for a meaningless domestic political debate for an invasion completed long ago. Get over it.....

    which presumes there actually is some collective Canadian neurosis about the war in Iraq. Most Canadians are quite comfortable recognizing the events and political leaders that ensured we had nothing to do with Iraq – in a most meaningful debate. There is nothing – nothing – needing a “get over”.

  14. If these guys and gals called resisters are not cowards ,why do they not just do their minimal time in their own counties lock up and then walk clear and free. Muhammed Ali did that and covered himself in glory. He did not run away like a baby .He stood on principal.

    What do these resisters bring to Canada is the next question. Would they take up arms for this country if it was ever threatened? Should they be allowed to join Canada`s military? If you being mugged on a street corner who do you think would come to your rescue? The resisters( since you don`t like cowards I will be kind) or a guy like Chuck U Farlie. Being an old soldier myself I know who I would like backing me up.

    the American Vietnam draft dodgers have contributed significantly to Canadian society over the decades. Will your sensitivities accept that many of those labeled as draft dodgers were, in fact, active American military who left their service.

    I’m not particularly troubled with your – and others – penchant for labeling the American Iraq war resisters as cowards. As I said, against the context of the most dishonorable Bush Iraq war…

  15. This was a non-binding motion issued by Mrs. Olivia Chow.

    .

    .

    Not quite what Mrs. Chow intended was the snickering of her liberal counterparts over her insistence on the overly dramatic description {conscientious observer} of these hundred or so American deserters from their country's armed forces.

    .

    .

    There is nothing more than the usual motives of these anti-war, anarchist anti-everythings together with the 'paid' organizers of the anti-everythings than to garner as much attention as possible for their causes, which includes much needed publicity for Mrs. Olivia Chow's/Layton's political career.

    and your point is? Are you suggesting the vote results would be different if binding? A majority of MPs expressed their agreement with the motion. Of course, the CPC sheepishly voted against it.

    perhaps you could cite to support your dramatization of snickering Liberals – when I read the minutes of the Standing Committee there are 2 motions in play, one from the Hon. Jim Karygiannis (LPC) and one from the Hon. Olivia Chow (NDP). The “conscientious objector” phrase appears within each motion. Eventually a single motion comes forward and is attributed to Ms. Chow, fully supported by all committee members (other than the CPC members, of course).

    anarchist anti-everythings? How silly.

  16. so it's a principled distinction you make - regardless of the number of tours some of these war resisters have made, regardless whether you want to acknowledge their actual histories, as it seems to work to your prejudices to label them all as "bailers". Perhaps you would prefer the term used within the actual Parliamentary motion - conscientious objectors. Better?

    No not really. They aren't C.O.s

    Conscientious Objectors historically are not deserters. C.Os don't willingly join the army. And when (back then) a C.O was drafted, they still served abeit in an non belegerent capacity, either as rear echelon or as a medical tech. While the looney left wing of the house who like to throw words around willy nilly regardless of meaning, they do not actually fit any accepted definition of what a conscientios objecter is ...a more accurate description would be political objecter, deserter. It has been said here before, unfortunately servicemen do not have the right to pick and choose which conflict they will be asked to serve in.

    And yes,it doesn't matter whether they had 1 tour or 20. They a law breakers, oath breakers....just leike an Enron board member or Conrad Black.

    Now it is so very unlikely that they would ever see active duty again, given that their honour is worthless, so the reason to stay here to avoid military service is false. They are here to avoid the repercussions of their actions, the repercussions of joining an army and the reperciussions of deserting an army. If they want to legally emigrate to Canada after they have faced the music, let them try then.

    the conscientious objector term itself is full of nuance – that the Canadian military accommodates it’s active members, should they be so inclined, suggests your misunderstanding and false categorization of the American Iraq war resisters who, most certainly, fit the eligibility criteria that would allow them to be recognized as conscientious objectors – by the Canadian military.

    DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection

    the Canadian military does not recognize it’s active members, those seeking conscientious objector status, as “law breakers”, as “oath breakers” (your terms) – and yet you would so label the American Iraq war resisters.

    in the context of a most dishonorable war, the Iraq war, interesting that you would be so free, so negative, with your honour evaluations of American war resisters. In that context, particularly in that context, it’s quite apparent the American war resisters maintain their personal honor in the face of the travesty that is the Bush Iraq war.

  17. The main differemce is that draft dodgers were principled. They didn't join..they went into exile. These ones who you call war resisters (I prefer the more accurate term, deserters) had no problem with the war when they joined...they played Lotto US Armed Forces and when there number fell on active service they bailed...if they were actually "war resisters" and not deserters, they would have never accepted the Kings Presidents Shilling and the benefits accompanied with memebership in the US armed forces.

    So like most draft dodgers in Canada, who went back to theUS whe they got amnesty, send tese ones home and let them finally take their princepled stand where tey belong.

    so it's a principled distinction you make - regardless of the number of tours some of these war resisters have made, regardless whether you want to acknowledge their actual histories, as it seems to work to your prejudices to label them all as "bailers". Perhaps you would prefer the term used within the actual Parliamentary motion - conscientious objectors. Better?

    "[it is recommended that] the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals."

  18. and what kind of a problem does Canada actually have?

    interesting - are all/any refugee claims problems?

    I recall an interesting study that followed up on a significant number of Vietnam War draft dodgers in Canada - decades after the fact. Each and every person profiled was a long standing contributing member to Canadian society. Is that that the kind of problem you refer to? Is that the kind of problem Canada has in considering acceptance of Iraq war resisters - that they might actually become Canadians and contribute to society?

  19. I look forward to those who support deserters answering this one simple question. Why do they run away to Canada instead of taking court marshall and a small sentence while thier peers go into harms way? Is it not better to make a point that your not a coward and are willing to have your day in court. At least this way you can continue being in touch with family and friends. Or is it cowardice of any retribution that makes them run ?

    the “coward” labeling in this thread seems such a hollow reservation, particularly one emanating from the sanctuary of a discussion forum – notwithstanding keyboard warriors, of course.

    if one takes the time to actually read some of the first-hand accounts of the varied war resisters, one can quickly appreciate the varied circumstances. One of the more prolific cases is a resister who refused to return for a second Iraq campaign – that he was wounded and received the American Purple Heart medal in his first Iraq campaign should damper some of the fervor for cowardice labeling so readily being thrown about in this thread. Another profile case has a resister attempting to work within the American military system – while on tour in Afghanistan, the resister learns his unit will be deployed to Iraq – the resister has fundamental differences with the lies behind the Iraq war – the resister requests conscientious objector status and is denied – the resister requests non-combatant status and is denied.

    varying cases being judged collectively by some within this thread – varying cases being judged separately by the Canadian courts, in spite of a Parliamentary vote in favour of a motion to allow U.S. Iraq war resisters to remain in Canada – in spite of the will of a majority of Canadians as evidenced by this recent Angus Reid poll. Clearly, only the minority Conservative government wishes to return the American war resisters… along with a few MLW keyboard warriors.

×
×
  • Create New...