Iraq war resisters

M.Dancer · June 5, 2008

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?

And the year prior to the invasion.....the kid lived in a cave?

Remiel · June 5, 2008

Could be, Dancer. The number of people who pay close attention to the news in high school is almost certainly very low. When I was in school, I read the paper pretty much every day, but then I was the exception. For the same reason that I post on a political messageboard and the vast majority of people do not. Most people that age are just not engaged by the news of what is going on in the world. I do not think our culture really encourages it.

myata · June 5, 2008

Let's look at the whole affair from this perspective: those big security companies; arms and weapons factories; oil companies; they need business; they need to make profits; and the profits they make are from wars.

Really; we've seen very well what happens to the whole defence business at the time of peace; reductions, less spending, sad state of affairs; nobody wants to spend billions upgrading their weapons system, restocking supplies; sinking billions into open ended research programs with unclear yields.

Thankfully, there's always an ultra conservative US would be president lurking somewhere around the corner; and, something is always brewing in this big wild world. It's only a matter of connecting the twos together.

Two things are necessesary to get the bloody business going: the public that is scared, or ignorant or both; and the cannon fodder (in the absense of such, a war won't ever achieve that bountiful level that produces really good returns on investment).

The former is obtained from ongoing repeated bombarding of public with scaring, even if unconfirmed, confused, guessworked, stitched, manipulated and plain outright false, "evidence". Till that time when anybody with a grain of independent thought does not care to take in any more of this bs, and everybody else is thoroughly conditioned (i.e scared) into supporting any salvatory enterprise (the greater the scale, the better). The latter, as since times immemorial, can be gotten from poor kids who dream about getting a college education to make it into better life. Voila, the meat grinder is set in place and ready to go. Here comes the master; the kids will be given the guns and sent to the other end of the world to build better life, with guns and bombs. The masters will chuckle and collect monthly dividends. Everybody's happy.

Except thouse who'd dare to try getting out of the bloody mess. They'll be chased with the full force of law, proclaimed deserters, criminals and generally, the scum of the Earth; the masters will smile and chuckle and wave hands at numerous photo ops and never (God forbid) neglect their proud duty to instruct common folks on the benefits of justice and peace.

Welcome to our just peaceful and democratic paradize. The dream we want (and make, whenever a chance presents itself) everybody on this planet to dream.

Army Guy · June 5, 2008

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.

Yes the president did take an oath, but he took on more than that as one of the worlds super power leaders, Who was going to enforce those sanction infractions. As for the acusation of planning the invasion before hand following in dads foot steps is a theory at best, one that has not been proven.

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.

Not true, any occupation within the military be it a machanic or clerk, cook, is a soldier first, every trades person is expected to fight, and engage the enemy when asked....this fact is not hidden from any recruit and would become obvious during a recruits basic and advanced training...and would become extremily obvious when training for an operational tour....What i'm trying to say is the military is going to great lengths to ensure that these trades people can fight and defend themselfs, and most of the training recieved during operational training is spent on this type of training.

They are told time and time again that they will be called upon to carry out this training....No secrets, no surprise when you hit the ground in Iraq or afgan, you enter a war zone, and you should already have that mind set that "i might have to engage the enemy" hence why everyone carrys a weopon and a war load of ammo....it's not to do humanitarian work, it's not to help you file paperwork, fix trucks, flip a burger....it's to take someones life....period, it does'st take a rocket sciencetist to figure that out....

HisSelf · June 5, 2008

A question for all of you who keep bringing up the fact that the U.S. army today is made up of volunteers:
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? A war that your country doesn't support, the UN doesn't support, and NATO doesn't support?

Again. It's not 'going to war' that the soldiers are objecting to; it's the IRAQ war. And again, if the order to fight is arguably illegal, seems to me anyone who believes it is illegal is obligated to follow their conscience. I cannot understand why a nation that's so critical of the war, so critical of the U.S. for going to war, wouldn't support soldiers who don't want to be part of that war.

Another issue is the constant extending of tours of duty. I'd say that if there was some sort of explicit contract about tours of duty, I'd say the deserters have a case, but I haven't heard that there is. Unfortunately, this is what it means to join the military. Hopefully, a lot of people are paying attention.

Doesn't mean I favour sheltering deserters. I am sympathetic to their situation. The Bush administration is growing more and more desperate and American troops are being given a very shoddy deal. If it was conscript army, I would feel differently, but people who join the military - and I mean any miltary need to understand that once you are in, they own your ass, and will sacrifice it if they have to.

If McCain gets in, it will only get worse for these guys. The US military is having a harder and harder time finding recruits and that means longer and longer tours of duty.

June 5, 2008

They are told time and time again that they will be called upon to carry out this training....No secrets, no surprise when you hit the ground in Iraq or afgan, you enter a war zone, and you should already have that mind set that "i might have to engage the enemy" hence why everyone carrys a weopon and a war load of ammo....it's not to do humanitarian work, it's not to help you file paperwork, fix trucks, flip a burger....it's to take someones life....period, it does'st take a rocket sciencetist to figure that out....

They are told time and time again only AFTER they've joined. I'm sure once they've joined and they are engaged in the kind of training you mentioned they've figured it out. But by then it's too late. Also, I wonder how many realize they are joining for a minimum of eight years. Even with a two year contract they are in the Reserves for six. Everyone, regardless of how long they sign up for, is in for eight. Then it's the Inactive Reserves.

Everyone who joins the military incurs a *MINIMUM* eight year service commitment. That's right, EIGHT years! It doesn't matter if you signed a two year active duty contract, a four year contract, or even a six year contract. Your total military commitment is eight years. Whatever amount of time that is not spent on active duty, must either be served in the active Guard/Reserves (the program where one performs drill one weekend per month, and two weeks per year), or in the inactive Reserves (one doesn't perform drill, but can be recalled to active duty at any time for war, or national emergency). Active duty members who do not reenlist onto active duty, or apply for the active Guard/Reserve upon active duty discharge, are automatically transferred to the inactive Reserves once they are discharged from active duty. link

So there you go, Army Guy. As I already mentioned, people being sent to Iraq and objecting to the war joined before they even knew there was going to be an Iraq war. And how many are being called to extend their tour of duty?

One of the things that really irritates me about the U.S. military is how doggedly they persue young people graduating from high school. They get their names and home phone numbers from the school, which must give that information to the recruiters thanks to the No Child Left Behind program, and they call and call. Of course the lure is money. No mention of fighting. They are, in effect, courted by charismatic recruiters who have been known to lie. And these are students not deemed responsible enough to drink a beer.

HisSelf · June 5, 2008

Everyone who joins the military incurs a *MINIMUM* eight year service commitment. That's right, EIGHT years! It doesn't matter if you signed a two year active duty contract, a four year contract, or even a six year contract. Your total military commitment is eight years. Whatever amount of time that is not spent on active duty, must either be served in the active Guard/Reserves (the program where one performs drill one weekend per month, and two weeks per year), or in the inactive Reserves (one doesn't perform drill, but can be recalled to active duty at any time for war, or national emergency). Active duty members who do not reenlist onto active duty, or apply for the active Guard/Reserve upon active duty discharge, are automatically transferred to the inactive Reserves once they are discharged from active duty. link

I'll bet that's in the very very tiny small print

M.Dancer · June 5, 2008

Everyone who joins the military incurs a *MINIMUM* eight year service commitment. That's right, EIGHT years! It doesn't matter if you signed a two year active duty contract, a four year contract, or even a six year contract.

Bah...that's nothing. Join the Black Watch or any fine milita regiment and you are there at the Queen's Pleasure (please note, that's at the Queen's Pleasure, not for....)

So by all rights I could be called upon to report for duty.....25 years after I was last on parade.

Just like to say I have kept my boots black and buffed, not polished but I'm sure my webbing has shrunk a bit.

bush_cheney2004 · June 5, 2008

I'll bet that's in the very very tiny small print

What a load of crap....here is the DD 4/1-2 Enlistment/Reenlistment contract folks. Everything our poor innocent deserters whine about is spelled out in plain english:

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:_NhQa...;cd=5&gl=us

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthem.../blcontract.htm

Edited June 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

segnosaur · June 5, 2008

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.

Ah yes, so now that your arguments have demolished, you've decided to nitpick on your wording.

Actually, I do understand the difference between killed and murdered... in general, a killing is not considered 'murder' if there are certain extenuating circumstances (such as self defense.) Don't think killing 'innocent' people would be considered self defense now, would it? Legally, its also considered murder even if the death is accidental, if it occurs during the commission of another crime. (And you were the one claiming the occupation was 'illegal').

Ok, so lets say you do somehow manage to differentiate a 'killing' in Iraq done by soldiers, and a 'murder'. That doesn't really help your case at all, since every conflict that has ever happened has resulted in innocent people dying. How can he contemplate being involved in any military action if the 'killing' of innocent people must be avoided at all cost? Why is an innocent life in (lets say) Kosovo, or Grenada, or Korea, or Panama, or Somalia, or Afghanistan considered less valuable than an innocent life in Iraq?

Edited June 5, 2008 by segnosaur

segnosaur · June 5, 2008

Could be, Dancer. The number of people who pay close attention to the news in high school is almost certainly very low. When I was in school, I read the paper pretty much every day, but then I was the exception. For the same reason that I post on a political messageboard and the vast majority of people do not. Most people that age are just not engaged by the news of what is going on in the world. I do not think our culture really encourages it.

Now wait a second...

On one hand, some people are suggesting that this person was right to desert his posting in Iraq because of the illegality of war, etc. Now, you're claiming that some people are just uninformed.

You see, here's the problem... you can't have it both ways. Either this guy is intelligent enough to interpret international law and politics in order to determine that the war and invasion is immoral/illegal/something to avoid, in which case he would have been intelligent enough to know about the possibility that they may be called to serve in a war they may disagree with.

or

This person truly was naive (or a moron) and had no idea that the military might actually require him to fight... in which case, why does he think he's qualified to judge the merits of the Iraq war?

(Keep in mind Remiel that I never claimed that you yourself had such conflicting views, only that various supporters of this particular deserter have made these claims over time.)

segnosaur · June 5, 2008

Deleted double post

Edited June 5, 2008 by segnosaur

HisSelf · June 5, 2008

This person truly was naive (or a moron) and had no idea that the military might actually require him to fight... in which case, why does he think he's qualified to judge the merits of the Iraq war?

I'm guessing the morality of the war is not so much the issue with these guys as the contract. You sign up for what you think is two years wanting to help your country and find out later that it is eight? How many here would take a low-paying job where there is a high probability of being killed only to find out that there were weasel words in the contract that committed you to four times more than what you were told eyeball to eyeball? No wonder the recruiters spend so much time going after 18 year olds. Sort of reminds me of the porn industry.

M.Dancer · June 5, 2008

You sign up for what you think is two years wanting to help your country and find out later that it is eight? How many here would take a low-paying job where there is a high probability of being killed only to find out that there were weasel words in the contract that committed you to four times more than what you were told eyeball to eyeball? No wonder the recruiters spend so much time going after 18 year olds. Sort of reminds me of the porn industry.

So you agree then he is a moron...too stupid to read a contract yet as another poster has already said, smart enough to decide on the legality of a war than has never had its legality challenged?

BTW, the US army is not "low paying"....although it can be dangerous....

myata · June 5, 2008

I'm guessing the morality of the war is not so much the issue ..

On the contrary, immorality of this war has everything to do with the issue; if a country prosecutes its people for refusing to perform morally reprehensible actions, wouldn't it be the duty of compassionate, civilized, and developed neighbours to step in and provide them with a refuge?

Interesting that legalistic crowd has been so quietly smug on already pointed out paradox with their very own righteous urge to condemn anybody else on pretty much anything, to the effect of not simply giving a refuge, but invading whole countries.

Obviously, the rule doesn't apply when our own immorality is at stake. Nothing new here.

bush_cheney2004 · June 5, 2008

Hell, if the "morality" of war in Iraq is the issue, just send his ass to Afghanistan to fight the "good" fight! :lol:

June 5, 2008

Chiroux joined the army straight out of high school nearly six years ago, and worked his way up from private to sergeant.

He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines before he was honorably discharged and placed in the reserves.

As a reservist, he was due to be deployed next month in Iraq.

On Thursday, he refused to go.

"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation... I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation," he said... link

House (the lawyer representing the soldiers seeking refuge in Canada) said that more than two-thirds of his clients have been deployed to Iraq at least once. One is resisting a third deployment. link

The Senate intelligence committee has reported that Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war. The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises"... link

Edited June 5, 2008 by American Woman

Topaz · June 5, 2008

Hell, if the "morality" of war in Iraq is the issue, just send his ass to Afghanistan to fight the "good" fight!

That war is questionable too because Bush told the Taliban to hand over OBL and they said they would and then Bush invaded anyway because ITS part of the plan to control the Middle-East, which is totally wrong for ONE country to have control over another.

bush_cheney2004 · June 5, 2008

That war is questionable too because Bush told the Taliban to hand over OBL and they said they would and then Bush invaded anyway because ITS part of the plan to control the Middle-East, which is totally wrong for ONE country to have control over another.

Oh Christ, what is it going to take....Nazis invading Toronto Poland ?

OEF is sanctioned by the UN and NATO....AW's "gold" standard! Take it up with her! :lol:

Edited June 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

segnosaur · June 5, 2008

On the contrary, immorality of this war has everything to do with the issue; if a country prosecutes its people for refusing to perform morally reprehensible actions, wouldn't it be the duty of compassionate, civilized, and developed neighbours to step in and provide them with a refuge?

Actually, the code of military justice actually does allow (in fact it even requires) a soldier to disregard orders, if the orders themselves are illegal. (See: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw...eyingorders.htm )

Here's the problem though... the soldier who fled to Canada was not disregarding a specific order. He was not asked to fire on (knowingly) innocent people, he was not asked to torture prisoners, he was not asked to kick a puppy dog. Those are all orders that he would be correct in refusing. However, refusing deployment because he disagrees with with his country's role in the conflict is outside his mandate. Give me a specific illegal action that he was asked to do, then maybe you'd have a point.

The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq have likely never killed an innocent person (even by accident, much less deliberately), have never tortured anyone, or have engaged in anything considered 'illegal'.

HisSelf · June 5, 2008

Actually, the code of military justice actually does allow (in fact it even requires) a soldier to disregard orders, if the orders themselves are illegal. (See: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw...eyingorders.htm )

Ha ha. My kingdom for a Republican Congress, LOL. I love it!

segnosaur · June 5, 2008

That war is questionable too because Bush told the Taliban to hand over OBL and they said they would and then Bush invaded anyway because ITS part of the plan to control the Middle-East, which is totally wrong for ONE country to have control over another.

At the risk of derailing the thread...

The Taliban did offer to turn bin Laden over, but NOT to the U.S.... they demanded he be turned over to a 'neutral' 3rd country. Given the fact that al Qaeda's attacks were directed at the U.S., and that most of the victims on 9/11 were U.S. citizens, and that the attack occurred on U.S. soil, I certainly don't think its out of line for the U.S. to expect bin Laden to be subject to the legal processes of the country that was most affected by the crimes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/1...stan.terrorism5

Army Guy · June 6, 2008

So there you go, Army Guy. As I already mentioned, people being sent to Iraq and objecting to the war joined before they even knew there was going to be an Iraq war. And how many are being called to extend their tour of duty?

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

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.

g_bambino · June 6, 2008

I'm guessing the morality of the war is not so much the issue with these guys as the contract. You sign up for what you think is two years wanting to help your country and find out later that it is eight?

I could understand the disenchantment with such a scenario. But, is it grounds on which refugee status should be granted to an individual?

Army Guy · June 6, 2008

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...