Iraq war resisters

[Guest American Woman]

Encouraging American citizens not to fight in Iraq is completely different to encouraging American soldiers to mutiny or desert their post.

Of course it's not. If you don't believe in the war, if you are concerned about innocent Iraqis' lives, then you should support the decision not to fight. It's standing up for one's prinicples; acting on one's principles.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course it's not. If you don't believe in the war, if you are concerned about innocent Iraqis' lives, then you should support the decision not to fight. It's standing up for one's prinicples; acting on one's principles.

No it's not....even civil disobedience means getting arrested and fined. If so principled, these cowards would take their lumps in court.

[M.Dancer]

I'm interested in hearing how people/nations can oppose the war, condemn Americans for being war mongers and killing innocent Iraqis, but not support those who are refusing to fight in the war.

You are having a hard time because you are confusing two separate issues.

Put it another way, some Americans felt it confusing how some Americans could oppose the war yet still support the troops. You didn't have to support Bush or the invasion to remember in your prayers every night those whose lives are on the line.....yoiu didn't have to believe in the cause to demand that congress make sure those same troops had the best kit available

...same thing here. I didn't support the war, nor do I support those who would undermine the troops, abandon their brothers and bring shame to their families and their word of honour.

[Topaz]

Currently there is policies and regulations that already exist in the US and Canada to allow soldiers already in uniform to claim CO status, and therefore not take part in that conflict, however there is ramifications to doing so, it normally requires that indiv to terminate employment within the service...

That being said each soldier takes an oath to defend his country, from enemies foreign or domestic, It is the commander and chief who decides who gets called enemies of the state....So actually the soldier signs a blank check and hopes his government makes the correct choices....however there is those escape clauses i talked about...There is also requesting to do his combat time in another threater, such as Afagnistan....so there are other options available....

The fact that this war has not been proclaimed Illigal by any court, a soldier has 2 choices get out of the military, or refuse to fight, and try and change it from within....either way one can not do that effectivly hiding out in the BC mountains up a tree.

So what they are doing is running away from the problem...and these guys are not interested in solving the problem,and making a difference for others or making a statement. They just don't want to do any fighting....

I agree with American woman. Army guy, I say yes they did take an oath but then so did GW Bush and when he took that oath to not let harm come to his country he was lying from the start. Bush and gang had the invasion of Iraq already planned but not how to do it and with the help of Tony Blair the plan set forth. You must know that if a world poll was taken they they would agree with American woman. Alot of the kids at joined were promise a certain job or occupation and when they got over they said here's a gun now go! There were alot of them in the hundreds that couldn't go back and do what the military wanted them to do so they killed themselves. This war is not a war like WW2, Iraq wasn't going to invade the states but we sure can't say that about the US under Bush can we. I've said this once and I'll keep saying it, if the leader of the nation invades another country like Bush has done then all those politicans that supported him, let their kids and grkids be the first to go and show it a necessary war. Bush doesn`t have the country behind him and neither does Harper.

[Guest American Woman]

...same thing here. I didn't support the war, nor do I support those who would undermine the troops, abandon their brothers and bring shame to their families and their word of honour.

I care about the lives of innocent Iraqis more than I care about "honor" or "shame." Those are pretty shallow emotions in comparison to people's lives. As for "abandoning their brothers" and "undermining the troops," I don't think I'd want anyone in my unit who didn't believe in what they were doing; who was hesitant to shoot/act for fear of killing innocents. I wouldn't want them covering my back, would you?

[bush_cheney2004]

... I've said this once and I'll keep saying it, if the leader of the nation invades another country like Bush has done then all those politicans that supported him, let their kids and grkids be the first to go and show it a necessary war. Bush doesn`t have the country behind him and neither does Harper.

I'm sure that the Taliban agrees with you, nevertheless, Canadians are engaging and killing the enemy in far away places. Please send your deserters our way so we can play politics with them like pawns.

[Topaz]

I care about the lives of innocent Iraqis more than I care about "honor" or "shame." Those are pretty shallow emotions in comparison to people's lives. As for "abandoning their brothers" and "undermining the troops," I don't think I'd want anyone in my unit who didn't believe in what they were doing; who was hesitant to shoot/act for fear of killing innocents. I wouldn't want them covering my back, would you?

IF this war ever comes to an end, we will hear the horror stories from the soldiers that are over there, just like with the Nam war. The poor people of Iraq that have lost their families, homes, jobs , everything because of Bush and Cheney wanted to control the Middle East.

[bush_cheney2004]

IF this war ever comes to an end, we will hear the horror stories from the soldiers that are over there, just like with the Nam war. The poor people of Iraq that have lost their families, homes, jobs , everything because of Bush and Cheney wanted to control the Middle East.

Old news...we've heard all those stories and a lot more since 1991....you know..when WE bombed them, sanctioned them, and starved them.

[g_bambino]

This is an interesting response. It doesn't really answer my question because it's not about "having sympathy" for those refusing to fight; it's about supporting them in their refusal to fight in a pre-emptive war that's killing thousands of innocent Iraqis; a war that Canada doesn't support. A war that's been declared illegal by most of the international lawyers. So it's not a matter of "knowing" something like that would happen before one enlists. As I pointed out, many enlisted NOT knowing their country would ever do such a thing. Like I said, not supporting them is supporting the war effort. Canada is in effect sending these soldiers out to kill innocent Iraqis when it could be preventing that very thing. That's an important part of the issue I am raising, and you didn't touch on that at all. I hope "not showing sypmathy for the soldiers" wouldn't be more important than the Iraqis' lives who are being killed by this war. Again. I'm not talking about sypmathy. I'm talking about putting one's money where one's mouth is. One cannot condemn America for this war and at the same time not support those who are not willing to fight in it.

By sympathy I meant support; perhaps I worded it poorly. Regardless, my point still stands: even though I agree with the soldiers' personally held opposition to the war, and I could support their legitimate efforts to get themselves out of the military (they obviously aren't suited for it anyway), I can't support their claim of victimhood, and thus need to be taken in as refugees. Naiveté about what kinds of conflict their government would send them into doesn't matter in the least; these soldiers should have well known before they signed themselves up that there existed the distinct possibility that a command would grate with their personally held political beliefs, and that, once they were enrolled, they would not be able to freely adjust these orders on the grounds of personal offence. They find themselves in the situation they're in because either they didn't know the aforementioned and couldn't accept it once they learned, or they just want an easy way into Canada. Either way, they don't get my backing.

Edited June 4, 2008 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Of course it's not. If you don't believe in the war, if you are concerned about innocent Iraqis' lives, then you should support the decision not to fight. It's standing up for one's prinicples; acting on one's principles.

If I didn't make it clear above: I support the decision not to enlist. I do not support the decision not to fight while one is enlisted, voluntarily.

[M.Dancer]

I care about the lives of innocent Iraqis more than I care about "honor" or "shame."

Then you should encourage the deserters to get back. Innocent Iraqis are being murdered every day...not be Americans.....the number of innocent iraqis being killed is falling every day, because of Americans. Americans are giving their blood for innocent iraqis....the argument that they are deserting because of the killing of innnocent iraqis doesn't hold water. If they were honourable enough to fulfill their duty, they would have a chance to help save the libes of innocent iraqis.

[myata]

We already have policy here in Canada that we follow, it states that we return those fleeing justice of another nation, as long as there is no death sentence involved....

Hence, we should return all those fleeing from justice of regimes like Saddam's or Taleban? Correct?

Or, is it that some, can do no injustice? By definition? Even when they bomb others into dust for no reason?

And what if they actually do, injustice? Should we sit and look the other way? Interesting strategy; I recall your very self going so very inflated about injustices perpetratred by Taleban; so, are there injustices and injustices, depending on who's executing them?

correct me if i'm wrong, but when has any Canadian polictical party been morally obliged to do anything....

They aren't, but a government has moral obligation to respect democratic will of its people, expressed through their representatives in a democratic process.

[Guest American Woman]

Then you should encourage the deserters to get back. Innocent Iraqis are being murdered every day...not be Americans.....the number of innocent iraqis being killed is falling every day, because of Americans. Americans are giving their blood for innocent iraqis....the argument that they are deserting because of the killing of innnocent iraqis doesn't hold water. If they were honourable enough to fulfill their duty, they would have a chance to help save the libes of innocent iraqis.

Give me a break. First and foremost, I never said Americans were "murdering" innocent Iraqis. Secondly, if you truly believe your claim that the number of innocent Iraqis is falling every day, if you really believe that Americans are saving Iraqi lives, then it makes no sense that you don't support the war. In fact, seems to me you should be encouraging your country to join the war effort.

The fact is, innocent Iraqis are being murdered every day because of the war. The war brought terrorism to Iraq. The fighting that's going on within Iraq is a result of the war. Furthermore, to imply that innocent Iraqis aren't being killed as a result of the our war actions is pure bull.

[g_bambino]

They aren't, but a government has moral obligation to respect democratic will of its people, expressed through their representatives in a democratic process.

Then, as was told to you already, the opposition parties should carry out the democratic process.

[M.Dancer]

Give me a break. First and foremost, I never said Americans were "murdering" innocent Iraqis.

Never said you did. Fact remains they are not dieing in traffic accidents

Secondly, if you truly believe your claim that the number of innocent Iraqis is falling every day, if you really believe that Americans are saving Iraqi lives, then it makes no sense that you don't support the war.

Didn't suport the war. The war is over, this is the occupation and America is responsible for the chaos hat followed and is duty bounds to stay there until they have fixed it.

In fact, seems to me you should be encouraging your country to join the war effort.

Non sequitor. Canada didn't breeak Iraq, it isn't our responsibility to fix it.

The fact is, innocent Iraqis are being murdered every day because of the war. The war brought terrorism to Iraq. The fighting that's going on within Iraq is a result of the war.

I agree. These are all reason for America's continued efforts to bring stability.

Furthermore, to imply that innocent Iraqis aren't being killed as a result of the our war actions is pure bull.

I don't recall you making that implication, but I;m glad you are walking away from it...

[segnosaur]

Give me a break. First and foremost, I never said Americans were "murdering" innocent Iraqis.

Never said you did.

Actually, American Woman actually did say that, in her post from June 4, at 11:58 AM: Canada is in effect sending these soldiers out to kill innocent Iraqis.

[M.Dancer]

Never said you did.

Actually, American Woman actually did say that, in her post from June 4, at 11:58 AM: Canada is in effect sending these soldiers out to kill innocent Iraqis.

I never said she didn't say it either...

[segnosaur]

Do you truly not see that someone could join the military with the belief that the U.S. wouldn't wage a pre-emptive war? A war that's seen as illegal by the majority of international lawyers?

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.

I find it interesting that no one has answered the questions, which I think are very legitimate.

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

[segnosaur]

Never said you did.

Actually, American Woman actually did say that, in her post from June 4, at 11:58 AM: Canada is in effect sending these soldiers out to kill innocent Iraqis.

I never said she didn't say it either...

True, you didn't... my post was more directed at American Woman, who made the claim " I never said Americans were "murdering" innocent Iraqis.". Just that you responded to her first.

(I do love pointing it out when people make such blatant contradictions.)

[Guest American Woman]

I never said she didn't say it either...

True, you didn't... my post was more directed at American Woman, who made the claim " I never said Americans were "murdering" innocent Iraqis.". Just that you responded to her first.

(I do love pointing it out when people make such blatant contradictions.)

Perhaps you should love learning as much as you love attempting to point out when people make contradictions, because if you did, perhaps you'd have learned the difference between "killed" and "murdered" and you wouldn't have made such a blatantly wrong accusation, and I wouldn't have had to waste my time correcting you.

So I repeat. I never said Americans were murdering innocent Iraqis, so I'll thank you not to twist what I did say into something else. This kind of stupid crap is what makes an actual discussion all but impossible.

[Oleg Bach]

Perhaps you should love learning as much as you love attempting to point out when people make contradictions, because if you did, perhaps you'd have learned the difference between "killed" and "murdered" and you wouldn't have made such a blatantly wrong accusation, and I wouldn't have had to waste my time correcting you.

So I repeat. I never said Americans were murdering innocent Iraqis, so I'll thank you not to twist what I did say into something else. This kind of stupid crap is what makes an actual discussion all but impossible.

Poor duped American troops are but road kill..so are our troops that parish in Afghanistan. We hear reports that so and so was killed in a fire fight ...as if some noble battle took place. The majority of death in these two theatres are due to being sniped like a dumb dog or blown up by some road side device..not knowing what the hell hit you...I would say that our decision to go to Afghanistan was based on the American intrusion into Iraq and a following of suit. This is a mistake and corporate elites are simply guilty of adventurism for profit...I would call that murder...you know what I mean....There is no noble sacrafice of our or American troops..just a waste of life and the military hate the fact that board room jerks waste the average blue collar boy for nothing.

[Topaz]

Perhaps you should love learning as much as you love attempting to point out when people make contradictions, because if you did, perhaps you'd have learned the difference between "killed" and "murdered" and you wouldn't have made such a blatantly wrong accusation, and I wouldn't have had to waste my time correcting you.

So I repeat. I never said Americans were murdering innocent Iraqis, so I'll thank you not to twist what I did say into something else. This kind of stupid crap is what makes an actual discussion all but impossible.

IF I`m correct there were US soldiers that were charged with killing innocent civilians without this war both in Afghanstan and the Iraq.

[Oleg Bach]

IF I`m correct there were US soldiers that were charged with killing innocent civilians without this war both in Afghanstan and the Iraq.

In all conflicts all sides kill innocent civilians...thats the nature of war...there are no good guys.

[M.Dancer]

IF I`m correct there were US soldiers that were charged with killing innocent civilians without this war both in Afghanstan and the Iraq.

And yes.....can we draw some conclusion to that factoid?

[Topaz]

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.

THE kids 18-21 at least, that joined, we know the recruiters were saying stuff that isnt 100% truth, remember? They were at the high schools trying to get these kids to go. Did you know Bush was going to invaded Iraq and go to war? No one did not even the politicans that gave him the ok to do it but never thinking he really would, besides how many people are thinking about world or US history when they join?