Iraq war resisters

[bush_cheney2004]

...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.

Stop-loss actions are perfectly legal (Article 10 US Code and Enlistment contracts), and not the basis for conscientious objector status. The US Congress has authorized the president to extend enlistments and commissions involuntarily for up to six months beyond the end of a war since the 1970's, and it has been used for all major conflicts since.

[g_bambino]

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.

That's a valid point. However, shouldn't they deal with that in their courts instead of ours?

[myata]

I am challenging your premise using Iraq and Afghanistan only. There are other interventions that clearly violated the sovereignty of other nations.

I never said (and it's in no way obvious conclusion) that "violating soverignty" is equivalent to a full blown aggressive war. Violating sovereignty in specific situation to check a crime against humanity may be justified. It becomes itself a crime if/when it crosses the exact and precise limits of a necessary action and becomes a full blown agression. Hope this answers all future attempts to confuse foreign aventures a la Iraq/Afghanistan/ Iran with peace keeping or international police actions.

Why is the peace "charade" over because of just these recent events?

Because these recent events have clearly demonstrated that we aren't interested in having any justice mechanisms setting limits on our military actions abroad. After that we aren't any different from any of the agressive empires of old as without application of law and justice the only rule that remains is that of the might. That's the chief lesson everybody learned from Iraq; no matter what we say and declare, we'll do as we please.

[Army Guy]

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....

I disagree, at most it was a bad choice, and only after the fact was that proven....but not wrong, i believe that the US did have enough to atleast go in and slap Sadam around again....this time removing him from power....sending a message to those countries that might try the same thing in the future...

[bush_cheney2004]

Hope this answers all future attempts to confuse foreign aventures a la Iraq/Afghanistan/ Iran with peace keeping or international police actions.

No, it only demonstrates how weak your assertion is. At least be consistent about the improper/illegal use of military force (i.e. aggression), because surely that line was crossed long before Iraq/Afghanistan.

Because these recent events have clearly demonstrated that we aren't interested in having any justice mechanisms setting limits on our military actions abroad. After that we aren't any different from any of the agressive empires of old as without application of law and justice the only rule that remains is that of the might. That's the chief lesson everybody learned from Iraq; no matter what we say and declare, we'll do as we please.

By George, I think you've got it! But it has always been thus...even for UN sanctioned missions.

Edited May 30, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[White Doors]

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.

So which is worse, no acting in Rwanda or possible over reacting in Iraq?

they get balmed for both.

Must be tiring for the US. I bet they wish they could be isolationist like they used to be. Of course they would be villified for that too.

[White Doors]

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.

I am confused as to why you think the UN security council voting for the war makes it any more legitimate. They refused to inervene in Rwanda and Bosnia. Why? Did the Tutsi's have it coming?

I mean, if they voted to stay out of it, it must have been the right thing to do right?

strange that people look to the UN for their moral compass. also a little sad.

[GostHacked]

I disagree, at most it was a bad choice, and only after the fact was that proven....but not wrong, i believe that the US did have enough to atleast go in and slap Sadam around again....this time removing him from power....sending a message to those countries that might try the same thing in the future...

I don't understand the difference between a bad choice and a wrong answer. They are the same to be. I made a bad choice, which means I was wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

So which is worse, no acting in Rwanda or possible over reacting in Iraq?

they get balmed for both.

Agreed...damned if you do....damned if you don't. So......

Must be tiring for the US. I bet they wish they could be isolationist like they used to be. Of course they would be villified for that too.

The US selfishly accepts and executes its fate as lone superpower, making choices that are often perceived as horrendous mistakes by others. There is no going back.

[Kitchener]

Stop-loss actions are perfectly legal (Article 10 US Code and Enlistment contracts)

So is the draft.

I think you'll find, upon reading my post, that I did not say it was illegal. I said it introduced a greater element of involuntary service, since it is an involuntary extension of the service period. Which is true.

[Guest American Woman]

I am confused as to why you think the UN security council voting for the war makes it any more legitimate.

If UN approval means nothing, why did Bush try so hard to present his case for war to the UN? Why do supporters of the war try to justify it by citing UN Resolutions? And why did the U.S. think Saddam should abide by UN Resolutions?

And again, it wasn't just the U.N. failing to back the war, NATO also failed to back it.

[Kitchener]

That's a valid point. However, shouldn't they deal with that in their courts instead of ours?

Yes. But that too is true of the draft. And it's also not to say that we can't recognize and mitigate the dilemma of those caught in the situation while it's being dealt with in the courts.

My cousins are Syrian, and their family moved to Canada when the boys were getting old enough to have to serve in Assad's army. I doubt there is anything formally illegal about the constitution of Syria's army; nevertheless, the urge to avoid doing immoral things under orders from its leadership strikes me as a good reason to indulge someone's wish to come and stay in Canada.

In this case too it's hard to make a legally compelling argument for why refugee status must be granted. But it seems like the right thing to do, in at least this sense: Just as I suspect that Canadians generally are glad that we gave sanctuary to unwilling soldiers during Vietnam, we would be glad to have done so in this case as well. I very much doubt that 30 years hence we'll be proud of having sent these people back.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Kitchener

[bush_cheney2004]

So is the draft.

I think you'll find, upon reading my post, that I did not say it was illegal. I said it introduced a greater element of involuntary service, since it is an involuntary extension of the service period. Which is true.

Yes, but it is not involuntary from a legal perspective, just administrative. Most enlistments are for a period of 8 years, being a combination of active and reserve duty. Stop loss provisions do not materially change the status as armed forces member with/without assignment to combat (or any other undesirable duty).

[M.Dancer]

And again, it wasn't just the U.N. failing to back the war, NATO also failed to back it.

And it wasn't just the UNSC failing to condemn the war, Nato also failed to condemn the war....

why do you keep bringing up Nato? Why not bring up SEATO for all its relevance...? I hear they neither approved or condemned the invasion...

[Army Guy]

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

I gave you that example to show you that sometimes being moral and ethical does not matter, it is what is law that takes precedance...that being said the War in Iraq has not been declared Illigal, by any inter-national court or the UN.

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

persoanl believes do not count, legal is defined as US law, inter-national law, or signed conventions....so far none of those have declared the war in Iraq illegal.

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

I'm confused by your statement, would it change your mind if War was not declared in Iraq, like in Afganistan. would that give combat any different meaning....

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."

Correct me if i'm wrong, After a regular force person retires or quits after fullfilling thier contract , he is done his duty and is free to live thier life as any other US citizen....To become a reserve that regular force person, must make that choice once again, to sign up and volunteer thier services...and in doing so knows that in the reserves he maybe called upon once again to serve his country....So if you had a problem with Iraq in the regular force, Why would you then volunteer to transfer to the reserves....

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.

Basic training is not just to teach you the basic of warfare,but also an indepth study of the indiv, can they handle high levels of stress, are they mentally stable, are they physically fit, any unseen medical issues....if the US army exams were anything like ours, the doctor asked me if i had flat feet, told some jokes, asked me if i had any medical issues, then sent me on my way....i fella in our plt had a glass eye, it was not discovered until week six of our training during hand to hand combat, when it fell out of his head after being smacked....Surprise, you need both eyes....

No they would not have been informed of any operations or future operations....that being said Basic training is going to give them a great insight as to what they will be doing in thier new chosen profession....training for war, not doing dishes in some grease spoon....Soldiers do not pick thier enemies, governments do....

Soldiers who sign a contract and volunteer for military duty do not have a say in which war they fight, They may assume that there government has thought out the decission to use military force, but when the commander and chief says mount up "thats what they do" "who ya"....

What are you pointing out with this link?

It gives conditions and expections of US army recruitment and re-enlistment....If a soldier wanted to become a CO then there are legal ways to do that....nobody is forcing anyone to fight, those that claim they are.... have not done thier homework....or are not very creative....Morris had an excellant suggestion, tell them you perfer the same sex, and poof, your trading in your uniform for a pink tutu and moving to San fransico.

[bush_cheney2004]

And it wasn't just the UNSC failing to condemn the war, Nato also failed to condemn the war....

why do you keep bringing up Nato? Why not bring up SEATO for all its relevance...? I hear they neither approved or condemned the invasion...

Good question....NATO materially supported the invasion of Iraq in Turkey and Poland, but officially has no position either way.

[g_bambino]

Yes. But that too is true of the draft. And it's also not to say that we can't recognize and mitigate the dilemma of those caught in the situation while it's being dealt with in the courts.

My cousins are Syrian, and their family moved to Canada when the boys were getting old enough to have to serve in Assad's army. I doubt there is anything formally illegal about the constitution of Syria's army; nevertheless, the urge to avoid doing immoral things under orders from its leadership strikes me as a good reason to indulge someone's wish to come and stay in Canada.

In this case too it's hard to make a legally compelling argument for why refugee status must be granted. But it seems like the right thing to do, in at least this sense: Just as I suspect that Canadians generally are glad that we gave sanctuary to unwilling soldiers during Vietnam, we would be glad to have done so in this case as well. I very much doubt that 30 years hence we'll be proud of having sent these people back.

But the absence of conscription in this case is the key. People here have said these soldiers were led into a war under false pretenses; but, these soldiers knew - or, should have known - when going into the recruitment centre that joining the military meant being expected to follow commands, all commands, whether they personally felt they were "right" or not. Similarly, we civilians cannot move somewhere and then pick and choose which laws we think are right and follow only those. If we do not like the majority of those rules, we either don't go to, or can leave, the jurisdiction to which they apply; your cousins' family knew the rules in place, left before they applied to their children, and, I assume, immigrated instead of seeking refuge. There's nothing wrong with that. But making a choice to do something, and then claiming victimization and a need for protection when it didn't turn out in the desired fashion, is something all-together different.

[myata]

I disagree, at most it was a bad choice, and only after the fact was that proven....

Of course, all the work Hans Blix's inspection team was doing in Iraq before the fact was proven, means nothing against Bush's administration's firm and unrefutable (by any rational means) belief that WMD existed.

Isn't it that exactly this kind of "believers" that caused, and continue to cause, uncountable problems? It's against them that the firm and clear checks must be set in place, once and for all. No matter one's beliefs, fears, and paranoias, war is out question as a mean of consolation, period.

[madmax]

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....

Harper Chretian Martin Mulroney Campbell Trudeau and Clark.

[Army Guy]

I don't understand the difference between a bad choice and a wrong answer. They are the same to be. I made a bad choice, which means I was wrong.

At the time the US president was presented "what everyone thought was facts" (later some of it was to be proven wrong) he had a list of choices or actions that could of been taken....from this list of choices he picked perhaps the worse one or a bad choice.....

He was not wrong in the choice, as at the time all the actions available where reasonable measures that were justified by the information he was presented at the time....

[Army Guy]

Of course, all the work Hans Blix's inspection team was doing in Iraq before the fact was proven, means nothing against Bush's administration's firm and unrefutable (by any rational means) belief that WMD existed.

Isn't it that exactly this kind of "believers" that caused, and continue to cause, uncountable problems? It's against them that the firm and clear checks must be set in place, once and for all. No matter one's beliefs, fears, and paranoias, war is out question as a mean of consolation, period.

One has to take into account the whole story, yes blix's extensive seach found nothing, but can you be 100 % sure that Iraq was forth coming and cooperated with said inspections, if memory serves me correct, blixs inspection teams where denied access to serveral sites for more than a week sometimes longer, and can you say for certain that these same sights were not cleaned up, or items or info removed....And if Sadam was being forth coming why all the fuss and hoopla about not allowing access to all areas, all the delays, etc etc....

My piont is Yes Blix's team confirmed that they found nothing, but those findings do not prove that there was nothing to be found....

Edited June 2, 2008 by Army Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

....And if Sadam was being forth coming why all the fuss and hoopla about not allowing access to all areas, all the delays, etc etc....

My piont is Yes Blix's team confirmed that they found nothing, but those findings do not prove that there was nothing to be found....

True, and moreover, the resumption of inspections and access was only forthcoming after the UK and USA staged more than 200,000 troops and sailors in the region. President Bush's speech reads the same as President Clinton's prior to Operation Desert Fox in 1998 (for non-compliance with UN weapons inspections).

[Wild Bill]

One has to take into account the whole story, yes blix's extensive seach found nothing, but can you be 100 % sure that Iraq was forth coming and cooperated with said inspections, if memory serves me correct, blixs inspection teams where denied access to serveral sites for more than a week sometimes longer, and can you say for certain that these same sights were not cleaned up, or items or info removed....And if Sadam was being forth coming why all the fuss and hoopla about not allowing access to all areas, all the delays, etc etc....

My piont is Yes Blix's team confirmed that they found nothing, but those findings do not prove that there was nothing to be found....

UN inspectors had been quoted as saying that being denied access made them suspect the worst.

Perhaps a simpler explanation might be more likely true. Saddam was obviously playing a game with the world to make them THINK he had WMD's! He was too good at his own game and his bluff got called.

Bush was not the only one to believe Saddam's bluff. He was just the only one with the resources to call it. The fact that no WMD's were ever found doesn't mean just that Bush was wrong. It also means that Saddam was too effective at bluffing for his own good.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps a simpler explanation might be more likely true. Saddam was obviously playing a game with the world to make them THINK he had WMD's! He was too good at his own game and his bluff got called.

Bush was not the only one to believe Saddam's bluff. He was just the only one with the resources to call it. The fact that no WMD's were ever found doesn't mean just that Bush was wrong. It also means that Saddam was too effective at bluffing for his own good.

I agree 100% that this is a likely scenario for what happened. Like Israel's phantom nukes. the possibility that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD gave him power within and without Iraq. I believe had it been known within Iraq that his stockpiles had been destroyed Saddam would have seen uprisings in the north and south and the possibility of the Iranians flexing their muscles, since in all possibility, they still have chemical weapons.

[eyeball]

You guy's just make this shit up as you go don't you?