Iraq war resisters

[eyeball]

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.

My understanding is that the troops sent into Iraq were sent on false pretences. Their government lied to them about why they were needed.

I don't support any country that picks unjustified fights with other people. That country should either have an honest reason for doing so or it is by definition, a rogue. One way to help it understand this is to shame it by providing sanctuary to the people it duped into enlisting.

Any country that has to trick its people into fighting is by definition, crooked. A soldier in a conscientious conflict with a country like that should automatically trigger our responsibility to protect them.

These should not be treated as mere refugees, these are living testaments to real honour and conviction and for that I would grant them immediate citizenship.

Edited May 30, 2008 by eyeball

[Remiel]

" It's the voters' fault, " is not an excuse, it is an admission of guilt.

And honour? There is little of that in modern warfare. The military is not some special category of existence seperate from politics. That is a dangerous delusion. Not to mention it is passing strange to be advocating abstract principles for soldiers on one hand, and on the other saying that what they think does not matter because they are merely trained killers.

[myata]

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.

You only pointed out your own lack of comprehension. The rule applies each time a buddy's gotten an itch "to go", without exception for past privileges or medical conditions. Too much's at stake, to get it wrong.

On a serious note, all states that pretend to be "developed" or "democratic" should make offensive agressive wars illegal and its initiators - criminals, by default. The record past WWII shows that regular checks in the system just aren't working to prevent unnecessary wars. The itch to write one's name into history is too great to resist, and there's uncounted number of ways to not inform, misinform, or brainwash the public.

[Topaz]

That "itch" to go must have cleared up because now on the US TVchannels are advertising to join the military something I haven't seen since the Nam war, the Canadian military is also doing it.

[M.Dancer]

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.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that a nation's soldiers require the justification of an extra-national body before they can fulfill thier oath and duty to their nation.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The record past WWII shows that regular checks in the system just aren't working to prevent unnecessary wars. The itch to write one's name into history is too great to resist, and there's uncounted number of ways to not inform, misinform, or brainwash the public.

The record before WWII isn't that great either, but I understand why it is necessary to draw the line there.

[Army Guy]

My understanding is that the troops sent into Iraq were sent on false pretences. Their government lied to them about why they were needed.

Do we know that as fact, can we honestly say that at the time the president made the decission to send US military forces to Iraq for Gulf war II, that he knew for certain that his reasons where false...I hav'nt heard or read anything that sugests other wise, can anyone out there provide a source or link that proves that the US president knew his reasons for deploying to Iraq were in fact false before hand...

If not then at best he deployed his military under bad advisment, and faulty intel...Not under false pretense or lies....

I don't support any country that picks unjustified fights with other people. That country should either have an honest reason for doing so or it is by definition, a rogue. One way to help it understand this is to shame it by providing sanctuary to the people it duped into enlisting.

There has been alot of talk about illigal wars or unjustified fights, What constitutes a illigal war or unjustified fight.

Are we saying that the orginal gulf war was not justified, i mean Iraq did invade Kuwait did it not ? The world did not have a problem with slapping the Iraqi's down for invading....

What the world had a problem with was after....upholding all the sanctions placed on Iraq, nobody wanted to be the cop, nobody really gave a damn about how Sadam dismissed most of the sanctions, disregarded his restrictions placed upon his military, in fact he went out of his way to make things harder, how many times did Iraqi A/c engage US naval jets, how many times did Iraqi air defenses engage coalition A/C, and to top it all off there is the kurd crisses....sadams breaking the restrictions and sanctions agains't him are to many to list here...

So when do we draw the line in the sand and take action such as Gulf war II, or do we just make the rules and for those that break them or disregard them there is no consquences.... yes many of the other reasons given have been regarded as false, Wpns of mass destruction, etc....but at the time did the US and coalition have the grounds to launch another ground operation?...and if so how can the war be classified as unjustifiable, or illigal ?

[bush_cheney2004]

That "itch" to go must have cleared up because now on the US TVchannels are advertising to join the military something I haven't seen since the Nam war, the Canadian military is also doing it.

US military recruiting has included television advertising for many years "since the NAM war", targeted at us media markets (pun intended). I have never seen a Canadian Forces recruiting ad, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Example ad copy now firmly embedded in pop culture:

- It's not just a job...it's an adventure!

- An Army of One

- Be All You Can Be

- Accelerate Your Life

- The Few, The Proud, The Marines

[g_bambino]

My understanding is that the troops sent into Iraq were sent on false pretences. Their government lied to them about why they were needed.

I don't support any country that picks unjustified fights with other people. That country should either have an honest reason for doing so or it is by definition, a rogue. One way to help it understand this is to shame it by providing sanctuary to the people it duped into enlisting.

Any country that has to trick its people into fighting is by definition, crooked. A soldier in a conscientious conflict with a country like that should automatically trigger our responsibility to protect them.

These should not be treated as mere refugees, these are living testaments to real honour and conviction and for that I would grant them immediate citizenship.

Dear me, how easily Canadian citizenship is doled out these days.

I don't believe the "crookedness" of a country is of any matter here, and all the French Enlightenment, freedom of conscience discharge is just a red herring. Asylum is based on a potential threat to the person's life and safety in their country of origin. As the United States presents none for one who wishes to quit the army, there are no grounds on which to offer these individuals any haven. They aren't even required by the state to stay in the army. If they feel the US is "crooked", let them immigrate to wherever suits them better; but they should go through the proper processes, and not try to skip to the front of the line by feigning victimhood.

[eyeball]

Do we know that as fact, can we honestly say that at the time the president made the decission to send US military forces to Iraq for Gulf war II, that he knew for certain that his reasons where false...I hav'nt heard or read anything that sugests other wise, can anyone out there provide a source or link that proves that the US president knew his reasons for deploying to Iraq were in fact false before hand...

If not then at best he deployed his military under bad advisment, and faulty intel...Not under false pretense or lies....

There has been alot of talk about illigal wars or unjustified fights, What constitutes a illigal war or unjustified fight.

Are we saying that the orginal gulf war was not justified, i mean Iraq did invade Kuwait did it not ? The world did not have a problem with slapping the Iraqi's down for invading....

What the world had a problem with was after....upholding all the sanctions placed on Iraq, nobody wanted to be the cop, nobody really gave a damn about how Sadam dismissed most of the sanctions, disregarded his restrictions placed upon his military, in fact he went out of his way to make things harder, how many times did Iraqi A/c engage US naval jets, how many times did Iraqi air defenses engage coalition A/C, and to top it all off there is the kurd crisses....sadams breaking the restrictions and sanctions agains't him are to many to list here...

So when do we draw the line in the sand and take action such as Gulf war II, or do we just make the rules and for those that break them or disregard them there is no consquences.... yes many of the other reasons given have been regarded as false, Wpns of mass destruction, etc....but at the time did the US and coalition have the grounds to launch another ground operation?...and if so how can the war be classified as unjustifiable, or illigal ?

When a country draws the line should not be as important as who should draw it. Millions, perhaps billions had a very good sense in 2003 that George W Bush was not only wrong but wrongheaded. The point that was made about a lack of checks against military aggression was bang on. I think a very good check against offensive so-called pre-emptive wars should require a referendum at the very least, and preferably private funding and conscription if the war is to be fought in a country's name. People, especially in democracies, need to be held accountable for the actions of their governments and the responsibility for bad decisions needs to be borne by all who make them.

[bush_cheney2004]

When a country draws the line should not be as important as who should draw it. Millions, perhaps billions had a very good sense in 2003 that George W Bush was not only wrong but wrongheaded.

Even if such numbers were true, it is irrelevant. The American head of state and at least two allied Prime Ministers agreed to topple Saddam's regime, consistent with policy going back to Gulf War I.

The point that was made about a lack of checks against military aggression was bang on. I think a very good check against offensive so-called pre-emptive wars should require a referendum at the very least, and preferably private funding and conscription if the war is to be fought in a country's name.

Not a very practical solution. The Americans tried to stay out of your wars with such diligence, only to be criticised for being late to the game.

People, especially in democracies, need to be held accountable for the actions of their governments and the responsibility for bad decisions needs to be borne by all who make them.

They already are......having to live with the ramifications of their choices. It should be no different for our beleagured deserter.

[Army Guy]

When a country draws the line should not be as important as who should draw it.

But we as a nation have already decided that there are rules to follow when governing a nation, declaring war, or deploying troops is in those rules....But i would agree that if there was time to debate ....then parliment should debate the fact....the matter of letting it go to referendum would not be practical, hence why elect people to represent us, if referendums were to be used why not have every issue solved this way...and disband our current method of parliment and government.

Millions, perhaps billions had a very good sense in 2003 that George W Bush was not only wrong but wrongheaded.

But those same billions where not subjected to the same amount of intel as the US president was....Do you think that there may of been a reason for his decission that the public was not privey to....

[M.Dancer]

....Do you think that there may of been a reason for his decission that the public was not privey to....

Yes I do. But it was still wrong, what ever that reason was, ego, legacy, bad intelligence, a desire to left the spirits of americans by striking back....what ever....

That being said, I still think the american illegal immigrants/fake refugees should be sent back to one of the world's most prosperous and one of the world's freest nations....

[myata]

But those same billions where not subjected to the same amount of intel as the US president was....Do you think that there may of been a reason for his decission that the public was not privey to....

No problem. No intelligence or reasoning (or propaganda / hysteria / brainwashing) should be able to justify offensive agressive war thousands miles from own territory. We should have a law that says plain and clear that such actions are illegal and unlawful and anybody attempting them is liable to criminal prosecution.

People judge us not by our preachings, but by actions. And after Iraq and Afghanistan I wonder if there's anybody left to take in seriously our ongoing cermons of peace and justice and democracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

...People judge us not by our preachings, but by actions. And after Iraq and Afghanistan I wonder if there's anybody left to take in seriously our ongoing cermons of peace and justice and democracy.

Sure they do...just look at all the "peacekeeping" missions elsewhere...like Haiti, Balkans, Serbia, Lebanon, etc. Or are those bad too?

[myata]

I see no connection; certain undertakings could make use our resources especially as we have more than others; would that make us the champions of peace in other folks eyes? After Iraq and Afghanistan? I seriously doubt that.

[Wilber]

I have never seen a Canadian Forces recruiting ad, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Try YouTube.

[Guest American Woman]

My understanding is that the troops sent into Iraq were sent on false pretences. Their government lied to them about why they were needed.

I don't support any country that picks unjustified fights with other people. That country should either have an honest reason for doing so or it is by definition, a rogue. One way to help it understand this is to shame it by providing sanctuary to the people it duped into enlisting.

Any country that has to trick its people into fighting is by definition, crooked. A soldier in a conscientious conflict with a country like that should automatically trigger our responsibility to protect them.

These should not be treated as mere refugees, these are living testaments to real honour and conviction and for that I would grant them immediate citizenship.

Good post. I agree with it completely-- from an American viewpoint, of course, and as such I give you my thanks. In other words, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the war and those who chose not to fight in Iraq, and it's what I would expect of Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not stupid enough to believe that a nation's soldiers require the justification of an extra-national body before they can fulfill thier oath and duty to their nation.

They may not need it before they can "fulfill their oath and duty to their nation," but the lack of UN or NATO backing can certainly justify one not seeing fighting this type of a war as an obligation to "fulfilling their oath and duty to their nation." In fact, it can be seen as doing the right thing. One doesn't only have an obligation to their nation, but to the world as well. It's why we have international trials, the Geneva convention regarding POWs, etc. and if you don't realize that, perhaps you are a bit stupid.

Edited May 30, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

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...

"But it's legal" is what makes the difference in your example.

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

I'm not denying that. But the soldiers refusing to serve don't believe that the Iraq war is "legal." Again, you yourself said that the legality of it is not a given.

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....

For the same reason any number of other leaders, dictators, etc, haven't been "chased down." Because we don't have the means for that to happen. But rest assured that some nations have called Bush on his actions and declared the war illegal.

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....

"Combat interests" aren't the same as declaring war.

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

We're not talking about people who just decided today not to serve. This has been going on for some time, so for some it's been a couple of years since their refusal to fight in Iraq. For others, they've already served their "regular enlistment" but are being called back as "reserves." So again, if one enlisted not expecting the U.S. to start a war without UN/NATO backing, a war where the legality is questioned by much of the world, a war that so many see as morally wrong, the fact that they enlisted rather than being drafted is a moot point. They are being forced to serve in a war they see as morally wrong as surely as if they were drafted.

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...

I'm not so sure that's the case in the U.S., but even if it were, my same argument applies. Those who didn't expect the our nation to act as it did regarding Iraq would not have been 'filled in,' informed of future actions, by going through basic training. Please realize that this is not about refusing to serve in war; it's about refusing to serve in the IRAQ war.

... 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....

People are trying to get out but can't. What do you think those soldiers in Canada are trying to do?

Website

What are you pointing out with this link?

[M.Dancer]

They may not need it before they can "fulfill their oath and duty to their nation," but the lack of UN or NATO backing can certainly justify one not seeing fighting this type of a war as an obligation to "fulfilling their oath and duty to their nation."

That is factually and legally incorrect.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

No where in the oath does it say that "in my opinion if I don't like the war, I will bugger off..."

Further more, the UNSC did not condemn the Iraq war, and it is arguable that the war was preapproved by the UNSC and for some obscure reason you bring up NATO but NATO approval is not needed legally or morally.

In fact, it can be seen as doing the right thing. One doesn't only have an obligation to their nation, but to the world as well. It's why we have international trials, the Geneva convention regarding POWs, etc. and if you don't realize that, perhaps you are a bit stupid.

This is a non sequiter, like your Nazi allusions a while back. The geneva conventions have not been breached, the US has not been charged and the inclusion of the Geneva convention into this debate is irrelevant because these illegal immigrants have not been asked to break the Conventions.

If you really want to add gravitas to your argument, say the soldiers feel that the colour green oppresses them, that marching on parade represses them and getting shot at depresses them and they miss their mommies.

[Guest American Woman]

If you really want to add gravitas to your argument, say the soldiers feel that the colour green oppresses them, that marching on parade represses them and getting shot at depresses them and they miss their mommies.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in stupidity-- and you've just confirmed yours, so I won't be wasting any more of my time attempting to engage in a discussion about this topic with you.

Have a good day.

Edited May 30, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I see no connection; certain undertakings could make use our resources especially as we have more than others; would that make us the champions of peace in other folks eyes? After Iraq and Afghanistan? I seriously doubt that.

I am challenging your premise using Iraq and Afghanistan only. There are other interventions that clearly violated the sovereignty of other nations. Why is the peace "charade" over because of just these recent events?

[Kitchener]

The granting of asylum would certainly be a clearer choice if there were a draft operating in the USA. But there isn't, as a few people have pointed out. As things stand, each of these people volunteered to join the military, which seems relevant.

But it's still not obvious that conscientious objectors should be returned to face punishment. For one thing, there's a case to be made that service in Iraq has substantial involuntary components for soldiers who have been stop-lossed, for example -- i.e., whose service has been involuntarily extended beyond its normal duration.

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in stupidity-- and you've just confirmed yours, so I won't be wasting any more of my time attempting to engage in a discussion about this topic with you.

Have a good day.

Sorry, i thought if you were bound and determined to add irrelevanices to your arguments, you should at least use some interesting ones that perhaps you had more experiance with.