Iraq war resisters

[Guest American Woman]

They don't get to vote on it.

No shit, Sherlock. In case you're unaware of it, "voting about it" isn't the issue here; another country giving refuge is.

Edited May 29, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

"Voting about it" isn't the issue here; another country granting refuge is.

American deserters do not meet the criteria for residency as political or economic refugees. Extradition treaties are in place to return such people to the USA to face the music. The least these deserters can do is own up to their actions and take the medicine. Once a coward...always a coward.

I am neither shit or Sherlock.

Edited May 29, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[g_bambino]

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.

And we know for a fact that a dismissal was requested and refused?

[Guest American Woman]

American deserters do not meet the criteria for residency as political or economic refugees.

I would say that's up to Canada to determine, not you.

[Guest American Woman]

And we know for a fact that a dismissal was requested and refused?

You honestly think they would move to Canada and seek refuge if all they had to do was request a dismissal?? Let's at least discuss this within the realm of the reality of the situation.

[M.Dancer]

You honestly think they would move to Canada and seek refuge if all they had to do was request a dismissal?? Let's at least discuss this within the realm of the reality of the situation.

If they are stupid enough to join the army and not expect to be a soldier, they might be stupid enough not to follow proper procedure and be stupid enough for Canada to accept them as refugees....

[Guest American Woman]

If they are stupid enough to join the army and not expect to be a soldier, they might be stupid enough not to follow proper procedure and be stupid enough for Canada to accept them as refugees....

If morally objecting to a pre-emptive war that's not sanctioned by the UN is synonymous with 'not expecting to be a soldier' in your mind, you might be stupid enough to not understand the real issue.

[Melanie_]

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....

Lordy, Dancer, the military never sounded so good! Where's the blushing emoticon when you need it?

[Army Guy]

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."

One can not compare US army pers, with NAZI's....big difference between the too....Todays US army is one made up of Volunteers, be it the regular army or reserves...one must make that chioce to walk in to the recruiting office and and sign up, and even if the recruiter was not very forthcoming about what a US service person is expected to do in the run of the day it would become very apparent in basic training....So the excuse that i did not know i would be sent to war is really a moot piont...

The NAZI did'nt need a contract, you served or where imprisoned, or worse....

As for german soldiers following orders, any illigal order is not obligated to be followed, however, i think most were being realists, they either gas the jews, or where gas themselfs, or forwarded onto more dangerous assignments, like the russian front...But they did have a chioce....

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.

Really, we are talking about the US military, are we not, it would be easier to name the times that the US military machine was not engaged, than it would to list all the different conflicts that have involve US military personal. Being a US citizen you should know, that joining your military, there is a very very good chance of seeing combat, some where in the world....And joining during the Iraqi war those odds only get better and better, of seeing some sort of combat....

A person does not go thru basic training and not pick up on the fact that most of the training involves carring out military duties one of them includes closing with and destroying the enemy....why train someone to do that if they did not expect you to carry out that task....why train them on the use of wpns if they did not expect you to use them....the theme is carried out thru out basic training ...so if after 13 weeks or more you still don't know that maybe you might be asked to kill or harm someone then yes i would say your a lair or mentally challanged....

No one asked them to lose thier ethics, they willing walked in and signed a contract, "and to do that with the Iraqi war still ongoing and not agreeing with the whole ethics thing to start with is a bad decision gone terriably wrong....and your just asking for the stupid stick....

As for an illigal war, it maybe, but not all americans see it that way, but thats another topic....

[myata]

No they didn't....but they are required to follow the lawful orders.

The lawful order may include going to another land and instruct locals in the art of democratic living, by force. This isn't much different (in the rationale, if not implementation) from what many well known (if not well remembered) apologists of "law and order" attempted to do in the past.

The question is, what can an individual do, if they are required to follow this kind of orders? I think it's in the best interests of the society to allow them out. It's the best remedy against getting too far into following wrong orders, whether lawful or not. And one can hardly get much further away from truth, than by starting totally unnecessary destructive war in the name of some lofty ideal.

[bush_cheney2004]

...No one asked them to lose thier ethics, they willing walked in and signed a contract, "and to do that with the Iraqi war still ongoing and not agreeing with the whole ethics thing to start with is a bad decision gone terriably wrong....and your just asking for the stupid stick....

I guess ethics do not apply when it comes to their legal responsibilities and unit commitments.

[g_bambino]

You honestly think they would move to Canada and seek refuge if all they had to do was request a dismissal?? Let's at least discuss this within the realm of the reality of the situation.

Yes, I think they could. As I asked earlier: is anyone trying to assert that one is bound to the army for life once signed up?

[Guest American Woman]

One can not compare US army pers, with NAZI's....big difference between the too....Todays US army is one made up of Volunteers, be it the regular army or reserves...one must make that chioce to walk in to the recruiting office and and sign up, and even if the recruiter was not very forthcoming about what a US service person is expected to do in the run of the day it would become very apparent in basic training....So the excuse that i did not know i would be sent to war is really a moot piont...

I'm not comparing the US army with Nazis; I'm comparing the claim that one must fulfill their military duty to the fact that there are times with it's not morally or ethically the right thing to do. In this case, the soldiers seeking refuge don't believe a pre-emtive, non-UN sanctioned war is ethical or moral.

As for german soldiers following orders, any illigal order is not obligated to be followed...

Who determines whether or not it's "illegal?" There are plenty of people who do not think the Iraq war is legal.

Really, we are talking about the US military, are we not, it would be easier to name the times that the US military machine was not engaged, than it would to list all the different conflicts that have involve US military personal. Being a US citizen you should know, that joining your military, there is a very very good chance of seeing combat, some where in the world....And joining during the Iraqi war those odds only get better and better, of seeing some sort of combat....

Again, "seeing combat" as a US soldier and the US starting a pre-emptive war that's not UN or NATO backed are two very different things. As for "joining during the Iraqi war," plenty of people joined before the Iraq war. If someone joined after, I'd say they have no case. But as I said, many joined before.

A person does not go thru basic training and not pick up on the fact that most of the training involves carring out military duties one of them includes closing with and destroying the enemy....why train someone to do that if they did not expect you to carry out that task....why train them on the use of wpns if they did not expect you to use them....the theme is carried out thru out basic training ...so if after 13 weeks or more you still don't know that maybe you might be asked to kill or harm someone then yes i would say your a lair or mentally challanged....

Isn't a person who's going through basic training already enlisted? To my knowlege, basic training isn't a trial run to see if one wants to serve in the military or not. They aren't given the option to join or not join after it's over. Once you're in basic training, it's a done deal. But again, this isn't about "going to war," it's about the Iraq war.

No one asked them to lose thier ethics, they willing walked in and signed a contract, "and to do that with the Iraqi war still ongoing and not agreeing with the whole ethics thing to start with is a bad decision gone terriably wrong....and your just asking for the stupid stick....

Again, many signed up before the Iraq war started.

As for an illigal war, it maybe, but not all americans see it that way, but thats another topic....

Not all Americans are in the military being sent to fight in Iraq, either. So if those who are see it as an illegal war, aren't they morally obligated not to fight? You yourself said a soldier shouldn't follow an illegal order.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The question is, what can an individual do, if they are required to follow this kind of orders? I think it's in the best interests of the society to allow them out. It's the best remedy against getting too far into following wrong orders, whether lawful or not. And one can hardly get much further away from truth, than by starting totally unnecessary destructive war in the name of some lofty ideal.

No, in the long run it is not best for society, since it undermines military effectiveness. The US military executes policy developed by elected civilian leadership under uniform code / federal law. For lots of reasons, we do not want the military or its members deciding when a war is legal or not.

[Peter F]

I guess ethics do not apply when it comes to their legal responsibilities and unit commitments.

But ethics do apply when it comes to Canada's legal responsibilities and commitments.

It is our legal responsibility to hear can consider their reasons for thier actions and determine wether or not, under Canadian law, they have a legal right to remain in this country.

America can apply American ethics and responsibilities in American and Iraq and whereever the hell else they want.

[myata]

Most certainly, military efficiency is uber alles. And, what kind of society wants its people to quesion whether its bloody overseas adventure is justified? That could very well spell the end to them, overseas adventures, with military industrial complex along the way? Really, who wants that kind of outcome?

[Topaz]

The problem with some of the US soldiers were they fill their contracts with the military and wanted out and the military came along and said no you're going back because of the shortage of personnel. This was before the US had to come up with $25,000 to re-enlist. Some of the soldiers did things that they didn't think was right and saw things and so there have been men and women that took their own lives so they didn't go back but you never hear about those.

[Army Guy]

I'm not comparing the US army with Nazis; I'm comparing the claim that one must fulfill their military duty to the fact that there are times with it's not morally or ethically the right thing to do. In this case, the soldiers seeking refuge don't believe a pre-emtive, non-UN sanctioned war is ethical or moral.

Although being moral and ethical is fostered within the military, it is trumped by the law....for instance you superior gives you an order do not allow any one to cross that bridge....a young boy approaches the brigde with a basket in his hands....he is smuggling food and ammo to the bad guys and you know this for a fact....what should you do....is it moral right to kill a young boy, is it ethical, No atleast not in Canada or the US ....but it is legal, the boy is a combatant and can be engaged...

A soldier must follow all legal orders, period....

Who determines whether or not it's "illegal?" There are plenty of people who do not think the Iraq war is legal

I don't know...i assume it would be international law, but let me ask this question if it is illigal war, why is someone not chasing down the US , why is someone or some country not hanging from the rafters yelling "this war is illigal" we want bush for war crimes....

Again, "seeing combat" as a US soldier and the US starting a pre-emptive war that's not UN or NATO backed are two very different things.

Really, combat is combat, what about the war on drugs in columbia, it's not UN or NATO backed the US has alot of combat interests not UN or NATO backed....

As for "joining during the Iraqi war," plenty of people joined before the Iraq war. If someone joined after, I'd say they have no case. But as I said, many joined before.

come on the war started in 2003 and regular enlistments are not more than 5 years, but i could be wrong....

Isn't a person who's going through basic training already enlisted? To my knowlege, basic training isn't a trial run to see if one wants to serve in the military or not. They aren't given the option to join or not join after it's over. Once you're in basic training, it's a done deal. But again, this isn't about "going to war," it's about the Iraq war.

No basic is to see if you can qualify to join, if you don't pass then your not excepted....and thier are plenty of reasons you can fail....so no it's not a done deal, but rather the begining...

Not all Americans are in the military being sent to fight in Iraq, either. So if those who are see it as an illegal war, aren't they morally obligated not to fight? You yourself said a soldier shouldn't follow an illegal order.

No they are not, but if you are in the combat arms trades you will get your turn in short order, alot of US army types are on thier 3 tour....it's been mentioned here before, as a soldier you don't get to pick the fights just fight them....don't like the fight then get out....

Website

[madmax]

but if you are in the combat arms trades you will get your turn in short order, alot of US army types are on thier 3 tour....it's been mentioned here before, as a soldier you don't get to pick the fights just fight them....don't like the fight then get out....

I don't believe an soldier can be charged in criminal court for participating in an illegal or Immoral war. (All war is immoral, not inescapable). Recruiters are not forthcoming and do their job which is to "recruit" But people must take responsibility for their own actions. That includes signing a contract with the Military. This isn't the draft.

While I sympathize with those mislead, or who don't wish to kill people, I have to say. It is a foregone conclusion that if you sign up with the US military, you are going to find yourself involved in an activity that kills people. (War isn't a video game, even if the TV News presents it as one)

The people of the US and their Government must be held accountable for their actions. And people, can fight the government, and soldiers disobey orders and go to jail on principle. That is how you get change. Call this war for what it is. However, Hiding in Canada as a refugee is not the answer for change this time around.

Times are different, this isn't young kids forced by the draft to fight on behalf of government.

These are young people who choose to fight and now don't like the career choice.

I can understand someone going abroad killing people and coming back, saying they had enough, and don't wish to return.

Army Guy has provided a patient and logical argument.

You don't pick the fights, you just get to fight them.

[myata]

And people, can fight the government, and soldiers disobey orders and go to jail on principle.

I have a better suggestion; let's gather all those who spend so much creativity and taxpayers money, to make these wars happen, round them up, and send right there, in the hell of the fight; and make it a rule for all future generations of aspiring Napoleons and liberators of all kinds: yes, you can have your battles and your glory; as long as you're the first one in the assault line.

[Alta4ever]

If morally objecting to a pre-emptive war that's not sanctioned by the UN is synonymous with 'not expecting to be a soldier' in your mind, you might be stupid enough to not understand the real issue.

Last I checked the UN is not the comander in chief nor does it represent the American People.

Besides what moral authority does the UN have, its actions speak for themselves. I just love to see middle east dictators held up as champions of human rights.

[Alta4ever]

I have a better suggestion; let's gather all those who spend so much creativity and taxpayers money, to make these wars happen, round them up, and send right there, in the hell of the fight; and make it a rule for all future generations of aspiring Napoleons and liberators of all kinds: yes, you can have your battles and your glory; as long as you're the first one in the assault line.

I just love to point out mistakes but most leaders that you are refering to have spent time on the front lines as low level solders both liberators, and totalitarians.

[Alta4ever]

I don't believe an soldier can be charged in criminal court for participating in an illegal or Immoral war. (All war is immoral, not inescapable). Recruiters are not forthcoming and do their job which is to "recruit" But people must take responsibility for their own actions. That includes signing a contract with the Military. This isn't the draft.

While I sympathize with those mislead, or who don't wish to kill people, I have to say. It is a foregone conclusion that if you sign up with the US military, you are going to find yourself involved in an activity that kills people. (War isn't a video game, even if the TV News presents it as one)

The people of the US and their Government must be held accountable for their actions. And people, can fight the government, and soldiers disobey orders and go to jail on principle. That is how you get change. Call this war for what it is. However, Hiding in Canada as a refugee is not the answer for change this time around.

Times are different, this isn't young kids forced by the draft to fight on behalf of government.

These are young people who choose to fight and now don't like the career choice.

I can understand someone going abroad killing people and coming back, saying they had enough, and don't wish to return.

Army Guy has provided a patient and logical argument.

You don't pick the fights, you just get to fight them.

Here Here.

[Remiel]

If there is one thing perhaps that is truly unfortunate, and that I think we could see some consensus on, it is that it is so much harder to nail the people at the top than at the bottom for dereliction of duty, even though the people at the top have a duty that it is on a whole other plane of existence.

[bush_cheney2004]

If there is one thing perhaps that is truly unfortunate, and that I think we could see some consensus on, it is that it is so much harder to nail the people at the top than at the bottom for dereliction of duty, even though the people at the top have a duty that it is on a whole other plane of existence.

No, the people on the "top" do not get "nailed".....they get elected.....so whose duty is really in question? Military service and tradition have an honor code that transcends current politics.