Iraq war resisters

[g_bambino]

There is no morality in war, nor values, nor anything that even comes close to "everyday life here in Canada". You will not find a good fight as per say, All war has to offer is grief, death, and destruction. every soldier knows that, and that is reafirmed on your first operational mission...

Of course, in our imaginary happy land where anyone who's told to do anything is a victim in need of comfort and support, war is only the domain of the oppressive imperialist or totalitarian. We, of course, are only peacekeepers; the morally superior bringers of happyness and joy to the distressed peoples of the world through hugs and ethnic festivals.

[Army Guy]

And so the myth is once more passed on to the next generation, But really can you blame them what else is there to do while living in our igloos waiting for winters to pass, and the play offs to end....how many times do we have to solve the worlds problems over a cold pint of good old Canadian beer. We need imaginary, we need to be morally superior, it's all we have.

[eyeball]

First of all, lawyers are not the ones who make the final decision about what constitutes legality/illegality. Its decided by whatever courts and/or legal mechanisms exist in the particular jurisdiction.

Wouldn't matter if every lawyer in Canada said "Person x is guilty"... he's only declared guilty when the courts rule it so.

Secondly, just because a war is pre-emptive does not make it illegal or immoral. For example, NATO operations in Kosovo were not done as a response to actual threats on the U.S. and its allies, but in order to protect the civilian populations. (In the same way, the western world should have gotten involved in Rwanda to prevent the massacres there.)

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, any suggestion that the solder "didn't believe" the U.S. would wage a preemptive war shows a complete lack of knowledge of world history. In the past 30 years, the U.S. has engaged in large scale military operations in Granada, Panama, and Eastern Europe (not to mention smaller scale operations in places like Libya, Sudan, and Afghanistan). None of those operations were supported by the U.N., and indeed some of them received significant international condemnation. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of world history over the past 3 decades would be well aware that the U.S. government is willing to engage in military operations even when its territories are not being threatened.

Your questions have now been answered, although I doubt you'll be truly satisfied now that your arguments have been destroyed.

I'd say your arguments only take the discussion to a more fundamental level.

The people and the politicians they elect are ultimately responsible for constituting the mechanisms and courts that determine what is and isn't legal. In a democracy the people are ultimately accountable for their governments actions.

After 30 or more years of electing governments that unilateraly wage military operations against non-threatening people, Americans with even a passing knowledge of...knowledge...should be prepared for just about anything that might blowback in their faces.

[bush_cheney2004]

After 30 or more years of electing governments that unilateraly wage military operations against non-threatening people, Americans with even a passing knowledge of...knowledge...should be prepared for just about anything that might blowback in their faces.

But not those who wage war multilaterally...right? It makes such a difference to the dead non-threatening people.

Edited June 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

There is no morality in war, nor values, nor anything that even comes close to "everyday life here in Canada". You will not find a good fight as per say, All war has to offer is grief, death, and destruction. every soldier knows that, and that is reafirmed on your first operational mission...

And isn't it simply amazingly unbelievable that after all the history teachings and preachings, group recitals of "war to end all wars" and "never again", pompous annual celebrations of myriads of victims of wars past, it only takes a coincidence of one tragic incident and group of boneheads with access to the power button, to start the bloody mess going all over again!

[Guest American Woman]

That same link will also give you reason that you can be released from your contract , It's under adminstrative section. it list many ways that an individual can be released from thier obligations, some of those reasons are the ones i gave you such as appling for CO status, admitting to homosexual acts, many many othrs , it should also be noted that yes you lose all your benifits....but you would be released from the military, free to carry out your life....

Yes, I realize there are reasons that a person "can" apply for release of their military contract, but not everyone qualifies for those reasons. Furthermore, there's nothing saying they will be released just because they can apply for a release. I've read of many cases where people have applied for a release and it's not been granted.

if these choices are available to these young men and women why are they deciding to desert and flee to the frozen north....

Choices may be available, but as I said, they may not qualify or very likely haven't had their request granted. I think you hit the nail on the head. If they could get out, they would get out rather than leave home, country, and family.

I understand your piont, And many Canadians do share that piont, i disagree because i am a soldier, and place alot of meaning into Duty, Honor, and commitment. To walk away from those and the bond of my comrads is unthinkable, to have another soldier take my place in combat, and god forbid something happen to that individual would haunt me for some time.

I respect your placing a lot of meaning on duty, honor, and commitment and I respect your basing your views/decisions on what you find important. At the same time, I respect those who are acting according to their ethics and moral code; according to what they think is important. You've based your opinion on what you find unthinkable and they've based their decision on what they find unthinkable. They believe fighting in a pre-emptive war that's viewed by much of the world as illegal, a war that the nation was led into on false premises by the Bush administration according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, a war that is killing thousands of innocent Iraqis, is unthinkable. Quite frankly, I think it's unthinkable that anyone would act against their conscience, against their ethics and moral principles, simply because they signed a contract.

As a side note, in order for the military to truly be a "volunteer" military, those being sent to war have to be in agreement with it; they have to be going voluntarily. As it stands, young people being actively recruited with the lure of money, then sending them off to war, is hardly my definition of voluntary. Furthermore, you can bet the Bush et al kids never got the call. Kids like that aren't taken advantage of because they already have advantages that those getting the call don't have.

Edited June 6, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

As a side note, in order for the military to truly be a "volunteer" military, those being sent to war have to be in agreement with it; they have to be going voluntarily. As it stands, young people being actively recruited with the lure of money, then sending them off to war, is hardly my definition of voluntary. Furthermore, you can bet the Bush et al kids never got the call. Kids like that aren't taken advantage of because they already have advantages that those getting the call don't have.

So are you saying that WW2 conscripts and volunteers should have been able to walk away from the commitment at any time? There were CanAm deserters in Europe, Paris being a favorite spot. Accordingly, I challenge your position with regard to conscience and responsibility, unless of course all such wars are "illegal".

Your definition of voluntary is biased and arbitrary. Nobody forces recruits to join up, and they know you don't get something (money, education, tuition, etc.) for nothing. When do they get to be responsible for their own choices?

Edited June 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

But not those who wage war multilaterally...right? It makes such a difference to the dead non-threatening people.

Its their survivors you have to be worried about, and I doubt if they'd see much difference at all.

[Black Dog]

I think someone who joins the U.S. military with an expectation not to fight in a unilateral war of dubious morality should do a better job of informing themselves of their nation's history. Actually, the same goes for pretty much anyone in any military anywhere.

[capricorn]

A federal court judge has ordered the removal of a U.S. Army deserter from Canada, a decision that signals this country is no longer a safe haven for American soldiers who decide to evade military service at home and abroad.

---

Before adjourning to consider her decision, Justice Mactavish observed that Mr. Long had "shown disrespect for Canadian law" by failing to observe the conditions of his release from custody last year.

In one instance, Mr. Long neglected to report a change of his address in Nelson to immigration officials. He was also found to have been working without authorization, court heard.

Mr. Long had just applied for welfare when he was first detained in Nelson last year. A local police officer stopped him in a local park; Mr. Long was standing with a group of men who had been smoking marijuana.

The officer discovered that Mr. Long was the subject of a Canada-wide arrest warrant and was wanted by Immigration Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency, on grounds that he was in the country illegally.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=654428

Hurray for our Federal Court!!!

Goodbye Mr. Long and good riddance. Your other dishonorable and system-sucking buddies, glass et al, will join you shortly in your homeland. Well, those that can be found that is.

Michael Byers had this to say:

“It’s quite clear that the current Canadian government does not want to annoy the U.S. government on this issue and will not give any ground,” said Michael Byers, a professor of politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/world/am...amp;_r=1&hp

Er, the Federal Court is NOT the government. But Byers, the supposedly all-knowing academic and NDP candidate for Vancouver Centre, seems to think otherwise. In any case Mr. Byers thinks the Federal Court...or the government....or both....turned back the deserters as a political move. You know, the Bush poodle thing.

In the same Times article, Bob Rae gives the Liberal position which is that deserters need to be given special consideration:

Bob Rae, a Liberal member of Parliament, acknowledged that the response of the Canadian public to the deserters’ cause was muted compared with its reaction during the Vietnam War, partly because the current newcomers are volunteers, not conscripts. But, he argued, the public favors giving American deserters special consideration.

“As a country which concluded that the Iraq conflict was not justified under international law, we have to take a position,” Mr. Rae said.

As the NY Times article states, perhaps the deserters we boot out will not face any sanctions whatsoever when they return to the US. That is up to the US and remains to be seen. The good news is that it just got more difficult for US deserters to use Canada as a doormat.

[WIP]

I think someone who joins the U.S. military with an expectation not to fight in a unilateral war of dubious morality should do a better job of informing themselves of their nation's history. Actually, the same goes for pretty much anyone in any military anywhere.

That's true, but many soldiers serving in Iraq were lured into the reserves in the pre-Bush years by the promotion of it being a weekend-warrior thing and a chance to learn new skills. Back in the Vietnam War, Dubya wouldn't have joined the Air Force reserves if he thought there was a chance he would have been shipped off to Vietnam, and whole lot of reservists and National Guardsmen, were there under the same assumption -- that as long as they weren't Marines or Army, they could skate through without being shot at, except during live-fire exercises.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's true, but many soldiers serving in Iraq were lured into the reserves in the pre-Bush years by the promotion of it being a weekend-warrior thing and a chance to learn new skills.

Really? You mean reservists and guardsmen never served overseas before Bush?

Back in the Vietnam War, Dubya wouldn't have joined the Air Force reserves if he thought there was a chance he would have been shipped off to Vietnam, and whole lot of reservists and National Guardsmen, were there under the same assumption -- that as long as they weren't Marines or Army, they could skate through without being shot at, except during live-fire exercises.

Guess again...President Bush volunteered for 'Nam after type qualifying in the F-102 (Palace Alert), but lacked the requisite 500 hours minimum. US Navy and Coast Guard service members didn't all "skate" through tours in Vietnam....even Senator John Kerry.

[NorthGuard]

Really? You mean reservists and guardsmen never served overseas before Bush?

Guess again...President Bush volunteered for 'Nam after type qualifying in the F-102 (Palace Alert), but lacked the requisite 500 hours minimum. US Navy and Coast Guard service members didn't all "skate" through tours in Vietnam....even Senator John Kerry.

Here's some interesting commentary on the danger and difficulty of flying the F-102 from a pilot:

There were some minor aerodynamic problems with the F-102. For example, at certain power settings and angles of attack ? like, say, take-off -- the jet compressor would stall and the aircraft would roll inverted. It is no picnic, skill-wise, to fly a modern F-16 with advanced avionics and fly-by-wire flight control systems. The workload on the F-102 was far higher. The F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14 occurrences per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102?s accident rate was more than three times that: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 ? almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam...

...Now, picture yourself in this chair, at 40,000 feet, traveling at one and a half times the speed of sound. Now imagine that someone has painted the windows white ? you are flying on instruments. Now imagine that not only do you have to be able to fly blind, by referencing these instruments, but that you also have to stare into that orange jack-o-lantern of a radar, and interpret a squiggle that will lead you to your target. Now imagine that in addition to not hitting the ground, or your wingman, and watching the squiggle, you also have to turn those switches on the right side panel to activate weapons systems, to overcome enemy countermeasures?without looking outside, as you hurtle through air at -40 degrees F, air so thin that should you lose pressure, you have about 4-6 seconds of consciousness before you black out and die.

If someone wanted to 'dodge the draft' by volunteering for safe assignment in the National Guard, flying the F-102 would not be an opitmal choice.

[bush_cheney2004]

If someone wanted to 'dodge the draft' by volunteering for safe assignment in the National Guard, flying the F-102 would not be an opitmal choice.

Good point...during the 1960's, a military pilot had on average an 11% chance of being killed just in the training pipeline. The Delta Dagger interceptor made the odds even worse.

[Topaz]

Really? You mean reservists and guardsmen never served overseas before Bush?

Guess again...President Bush volunteered for 'Nam after type qualifying in the F-102 (Palace Alert), but lacked the requisite 500 hours minimum. US Navy and Coast Guard service members didn't all "skate" through tours in Vietnam....even Senator John Kerry.

Bush did go into the Guards to avoid going over to Nam and no other reason. When the military changed its mind and said it would send Air Guards over like Bush`s group he went off, got into alcohol and coke and he started to miss classes so he wouldnt finish his course and then his dad got him into rehab and through friends in the military got his son out of the guards. GW can`t take pressure and even as Prez, he`s had to take medication for his depress state of mind. GW is not the only Bush to have problems with cocaine and we all know it. Even though Bush and his PR people got rid of any proof of him not finishing, I do have a copy of his military records I printed off the net back in 2000. When you come from big bucks you can buy anything and anyone.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush did go into the Guards to avoid going over to Nam and no other reason. When the military changed its mind and said it would send Air Guards over like Bush`s group he went off, got into alcohol and coke and he started to miss classes so he wouldnt finish his course and then his dad got him into rehab and through friends in the military got his son out of the guards.

This is utter rubbish, and not even up to your usual confused Roseanne Rosanadanna standard.

GW can`t take pressure and even as Prez, he`s had to take medication for his depress state of mind. GW is not the only Bush to have problems with cocaine and we all know it. Even though Bush and his PR people got rid of any proof of him not finishing, I do have a copy of his military records I printed off the net back in 2000. When you come from big bucks you can buy anything and anyone.

Well, if drugs were good enough for Trudeau and Margie, they are good enough for American presidents by God!

Edited July 16, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jazzer]

Really? You mean reservists and guardsmen never served overseas before Bush?

Guess again...President Bush volunteered for 'Nam after type qualifying in the F-102 (Palace Alert), but lacked the requisite 500 hours minimum.

Then there's this from an interview with Tim Russert:

Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?

President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't... link

Edited July 16, 2008 by jazzer

[AngusThermopyle]

I do have a copy of his military records I printed off the net back in 2000.

Just out of curiosity I have to ask; how the hell did you get that?

Personnel records are classified documents and as such not for public dissemination. If someone did in fact publish them they would be subject to prosecution.

As I said, just curious about this as it seems a bit unlikely.