Iraq war resisters

[Topaz]

The House of Commons today are debating if the US soldiers some 50,000 of them can be allowed to stay in Canada. So far I've heard the 3 opposition parties all agree that they should and it was brought into law back in 1969 and 1972 to allow them to stay. What is the view of the forum? Mine is let them stay because the Iraq war wasn't necessary and the Afghanistan invasion shouldn't hapen either. The US told the Taliban to give up OBL and they were in the process of doing so when Bush sent in the troops. Another question is if Canada allows any soldier to come here, what does that say for the Canadians troops that may not believe in say the Afghanistan war?

[M.Dancer]

I'm opposed to all cue jumpers whom I view as illegal immigrants. If they wish to emigrate to Canada then by all means let them go through the process. If the wish to be considered refugees then let them have a hearing.

------------------

Would it kill you once to provide a link? Just once?

[M.Dancer]

Another question is if Canada allows any soldier to come here, what does that say for the Canadians troops that may not believe in say the Afghanistan war?

Do you know her name?

[Topaz]

I'm opposed to all cue jumpers whom I view as illegal immigrants. If they wish to emigrate to Canada then by all means let them go through the process. If the wish to be considered refugees then let them have a hearing.

------------------

Would it kill you once to provide a link? Just once?

From what I heard today from this debate, the soldiers are already called refugees by law and it doesn't matter if they signed up or were drafted. If they came in as immigrants, the Harper gov't will not allow them in because Harper was for the war in Iraq.

[M.Dancer]

From what I heard today from this debate, the soldiers are already called refugees by law and it doesn't matter if they signed up or were drafted. If they came in as immigrants, the Harper gov't will not allow them in because Harper was for the war in Iraq.

Then your toaster misinformed you, along with the number 50,000. You must first claimn refugee status at teh border, then you have a hearing to see if your claim is valid.

You should consider buying a Braun.

[Guest American Woman]

According to this link, Customs and Immigrations Canada has received "about 40 applications for refugee claims from U.S. deserters since the Iraq war began in 2003."

From the same article:

A U.S. soldier who deserted to Canada will not face persecution if he returns to the United States, Canada's refugee agency ruled Wednesday.

Glass, who's still on active duty and is considered absent without leave, applied for refugee status at the Canadian border in August 2006 on the grounds of objection to military service.

But Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board denied his application for refugee status Wednesday, prompting the Canadian Border Services Agency to issue a June 12 deportation order.

Members of War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada, which is providing transitional support to Glass and at least 13 other deserters in Canada, are holding out for a political avenue of appeal through the Canadian House of Commons.

In December, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion calling on the Canadian government to initiate a residency program for conscientious objectors who have left military service "related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations."

The motion has yet to receive approval from the entire House of Commons.

Edited to add: I think Canada should give the soldiers refugee based on the fact, as stated, that it's not a UN sanctioned war.

Edited May 29, 2008 by American Woman

[Wild Bill]

From what I heard today from this debate, the soldiers are already called refugees by law and it doesn't matter if they signed up or were drafted. If they came in as immigrants, the Harper gov't will not allow them in because Harper was for the war in Iraq.

My understanding is that America has not drafted soldiers for a long time now. That means today's American soldiers must have been volunteers.

I don't support a soldier picking and choosing what conflicts he wishes to fight in. He's either in the chain of command or he's a civilian, by definition. He should have understood that before he chose to enlist!

If he leaves the army he's a deserter, by definition as well. Any conflict he has is with his country's army and has nothing to do with us. Canada is not here to "rescue" someone who wants to desert.

As for a refugee hearing, we used to define a refugee as someone who fled his native country out of fear for his life. It's been a VERY long time since America shot its deserters! For that reason I would deny them refugee status.

[g_bambino]

The House of Commons today are debating if the US soldiers some 50,000 of them can be allowed to stay in Canada. So far I've heard the 3 opposition parties all agree that they should and it was brought into law back in 1969 and 1972 to allow them to stay. What is the view of the forum? Mine is let them stay because the Iraq war wasn't necessary and the Afghanistan invasion shouldn't hapen either. The US told the Taliban to give up OBL and they were in the process of doing so when Bush sent in the troops. Another question is if Canada allows any soldier to come here, what does that say for the Canadians troops that may not believe in say the Afghanistan war?

Wars are not about the soldiers' personal beliefs. If a person enlists it becomes their duty to do their job, which is to follow commands. If they can't do this, they should quit, if they aren't court-martialed anyway. Now, soldiers who are conscripted are another story all-together, which brings me to, I think, the key point in this Iraq-dodgers' issue: Vietnam was a war in which conscripted soldiers were sent to fight, they could not opt to keep away from the conflict, and so, I believe, had more legitimate reasons to seek asylum in Canada than those who volunteered for the army and then found out what the demands of the job were. The "illegality" of the war isn't even a reason; until an international court rules that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, any illegitimacy is purely personal opinion, which doesn't hold up as a defence in a court of law.

[Guest American Woman]

Wars are not about the soldiers' personal beliefs. If a person enlists it becomes their duty to do their job, which is to follow commands. If they can't do this, they should quit...

You think enlisted troops can choose to "quit?"

[M.Dancer]

You think enlisted troops can choose to "quit?"

Pretty easy. You visit the base psychiatrist and tell him how hard it is living with all those grogeous men and the hot, taught yummy bodies and how you are looking forward to spending time with them overseas, sharing bunks and showering together, occassionally helping eash other wash the desert grime off their hard muscled backs....

[Pliny]

You think enlisted troops can choose to "quit?"

They chose to join and signed a term agreement. They can request to resign.

They cannot just go AWOL, desertion is desertion. It is a dereliction of commitment and duty and a betrayal of trust.

You would have an argument if they had been conscripted.

[Guest American Woman]

They chose to join and signed a term agreement. They can request to resign.

They cannot just go AWOL, desertion is desertion. It is a dereliction of commitment and duty and a betrayal of trust.

You would have an argument if they had been conscripted.

I realize they can't just quit. I was asking g_bambino if he thought they could just quit since that's the solution he offered up, so it wasn't my "argument."

[Army Guy]

Pretty easy. You visit the base psychiatrist and tell him how hard it is living with all those grogeous men and the hot, taught yummy bodies and how you are looking forward to spending time with them overseas, sharing bunks and showering together, occassionally helping eash other wash the desert grime off their hard muscled backs....

Good one morris....

[myata]

I think there should be a way for enlisted army members to not participate in objectionable armed confrontations. At least on some specific grounds. Like participating in totally unnecessary unprovoked agressions.

Maybe it'll do something to discourage overseas aventures a la Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran.

And in end, wonder if we ever get there, all wars other than defense of own land should be outlawed outright and anybody complicit in starting such war made a criminal under law.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think there should be a way for enlisted army members to not participate in objectionable armed confrontations. At least on some specific grounds. Like participating in totally unnecessary unprovoked agressions.

There already is...it is called desertion. They can voice their objections to the cell walls at Fort Leavenworth.

Maybe it'll do something to discourage overseas aventures a la Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran.

But it's OK to bomb people with more dedicated commissioned officers (e.g. Kosovo)?

And in end, wonder if we ever get there, all wars other than defense of own land should be outlawed outright and anybody complicit in starting such war made a criminal under law.

Oh yea.....that should scare 'em. Who wants to be a convicted warmonger!

[Kitchener]

The House of Commons today are debating if the US soldiers some 50,000 of them can be allowed to stay in Canada. So far I've heard the 3 opposition parties all agree that they should and it was brought into law back in 1969 and 1972 to allow them to stay. What is the view of the forum? Mine is let them stay because the Iraq war wasn't necessary and the Afghanistan invasion shouldn't hapen either. The US told the Taliban to give up OBL and they were in the process of doing so when Bush sent in the troops. Another question is if Canada allows any soldier to come here, what does that say for the Canadians troops that may not believe in say the Afghanistan war?

Where the hell are you getting your information?

For pete's sake...

[g_bambino]

I realize they can't just quit. I was asking g_bambino if he thought they could just quit since that's the solution he offered up, so it wasn't my "argument."

I didn't say they could "just" quit; but they obviously can. I think the main point is that if they object to war, or to taking orders they may not personally agree with, they shouldn't voluntarily join in the first place.

Edited May 29, 2008 by g_bambino

[Army Guy]

My question is this, "Is there anyone out there right now that does not know what a soldier does for a living"....Ok i will give a small percentage of people the benifit of the dought....But how could those same people go thru basic training and "NOT" fully understand what thier new profession does for a living....

This is not about refugees, or immigrants, whether the war ws justified or not....it's about desertion, and failing to live up to a contract they signed willingly, knowing the consquences well before hand, anyone saying different is a liar, or mentally challanged........and these people are looking for a cheap way out....Send them back and have them to face up to thier problems under US law....

[Guest American Woman]

Obviously I do, and obviously my thinking is sound.

It may be sound, but it's wrong.

[MontyBurns]

Send those cowards home! :angry:

[g_bambino]

It may be sound, but it's wrong.

I reworded my response; obviously too late. Regardless, it's established that a soldier can quit the military. Is anyone trying to claim that they're held there for life?

Edited May 29, 2008 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

My question is this, "Is there anyone out there right now that does not know what a soldier does for a living"....Ok i will give a small percentage of people the benifit of the dought....But how could those same people go thru basic training and "NOT" fully understand what thier new profession does for a living....

This is not about refugees, or immigrants, whether the war ws justified or not....it's about desertion, and failing to live up to a contract they signed willingly, knowing the consquences well before hand, anyone saying different is a liar, or mentally challanged........and these people are looking for a cheap way out....Send them back and have them to face up to thier problems under US law....

So you think anyone who enlists should just follow orders no matter what? You think the German troops were obligated to follow Hitler's orders, for example, and gas the Jews? After all, they had a "contract."

Not everyone who willingly enlisted thought our country would start a war, much less one that's not sanctioned by the UN, so to say everyone who enlisted 'knew the consequences well before hand' is not true, and saying so doesn't make one a liar or mentally challenged. I don't think enlisting requires one to lose their ethics, and I agree with the grounds that the Iraq war was not a UN sanctioned war.

[g_bambino]

So you think anyone who enlists should just follow orders no matter what? You think the German troops were obligated to follow Hitler's orders, for example, and gas the Jews? After all, they had a "contract."

Not everyone who willingly enlisted thought our country would start a war, much less one that's not sanctioned by the UN, so to say everyone who enlisted 'knew the consequences well before hand' is not true, and saying so doesn't make one a liar or mentally challenged. I don't think enlisting requires one to lose their ethics, and I agree with the grounds that the Iraq war was not a UN sanctioned war.

Of course when one enlists they take their morals and ethics with them; however, they should also know that it will be their job - no, their duty - to follow orders, whether or not they agree with them. Should soldiers be able to organise and choose their tours of duty? Maybe they could make their own bedtimes too. Regardless, this is a matter of seeking asylum; refugees are people offered temporary protection while they face threat and danger in their homeland. If a US soldier has the option to request dismissal from the forces because he does not want to do the job, after he volunteered for the job, then he never faced any persecution in his homeland, nor was he even forced to keep doing something against his personal morals. So, he has no grounds to seek refuge in Canada.

Edited May 29, 2008 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

If a US soldier has the option to request dismissal from the forces because he does not want to do the job, after he volunteered for the job, then he never faced any persecution in his homeland, nor was he even forced to keep doing something against his personal morals. So, he has no grounds to seek refuge in Canada.

If a soldier had the option of "requesting a dismissal" from the military because he (to use your words) "does not want to do the job" and having that request granted, he wouldn't be in Canada seeking refuge. It wouldn't be a matter of not having any "grounds," it would be a matter of not having any reason to be there seeking refuge; hence they wouldn't be.

Edited May 29, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

So you think anyone who enlists should just follow orders no matter what? You think the German troops were obligated to follow Hitler's orders, for example, and gas the Jews? After all, they had a "contract."

No they didn't....but they are required to follow the lawful orders. They don't get to vote on it.

Not everyone who willingly enlisted thought our country would start a war, much less one that's not sanctioned by the UN, so to say everyone who enlisted 'knew the consequences well before hand' is not true, and saying so doesn't make one a liar or mentally challenged. I don't think enlisting requires one to lose their ethics, and I agree with the grounds that the Iraq war was not a UN sanctioned war.

So what? Read the friggin' enlistment contract..hell, if so inclined, have your lawyer review it too!

They might want to brush up on the Uniform Code of Military Justice too...it's available online.

I recommend "Full Metal Jacket" instead of "Stripes".