Canada Welcomes Criminals as Refugees

[caesar]

There were several reasons he invaded Iraq, maybe you should know a subject before debating it.

Yeah; he had to keep inventing new "reasons" whenever the previous ones were proven to be nonsense.

Control and oil

[PocketRocket]

 

You really like that word "pinko" don't you??? Something in your past, perhaps??? Were you bitten by a pink poodle as a child???

Interesting how you label the man as a criminal, when he hasn't even been tried, let alone convicted, yet.

Have you now been appointed judge and jury???

First part was irrelevant to the discussion so I will ignore it.

The man is labelled as a criminal because deserting the army is a crime, in fact a century ago he would be shot on sight for doing just that so yeah I would say it is safe to assume he is a criminal. If you need a judge and jury to contrive that then perhaps you should invest in some independant thought.

And a man holding a smoking gun while standing over a body with a bullet hole is obviously a murderer.

Why is it then that in some such scenarios, a man in that position has been found innocent???

He'll be a criminal when he is tried and convicted.

 

Like so many others before him. 

And that proves what? You failed to address the point, reread it for real this time.

I would think that my point was obvious. He's far from being the first. That part of my previous antagonist's post was irrelevant. It is not a crime to join the army to get an education, he was trying to make it sound like it is a crime.

When you consider that the UN and many MANY nations consider Iraq to be an illegal war under international law, the it could be argued that Bush broke international law and violated this man's trust in ordering him to fight in an illegal war. 

Argue away, there is no proof and therefore it is not a valid point. There was not enough proof to prove Iraq was an illegal war, never did the USA agree to be run by the UN and therefore it doesn't need the permission of the UN to ensure its national security. That is why the USA 'elects' officials for the USA's interests, not the UN's.

Not everyone wants a global ruling elite, and I dont mean the USA I mean the UN.

Oh, this is rich. Hintzman is a criminal without the benefit of his day in court, according to yourself and a few others.

But the US is not engaged in an illegal war because there is "not enough proof", even though many nations, and UN members, and, in fact, many American citizens, seem to think so.

Should the USA be put on trial???

Secondly, if the USA is using the UN resolutions as a justification to attack Iraq, then it must mean the UN is somehow relevant.

But Bush said the UN is NOT relevant.

Which is it??? Can't have it both ways.

 

And exactly how did he lie to Canadian Immigration??? He said he wanted to come here to avoid fighting in Iraq. Where is the lie??? Do you think he actually wanted to come here simply to enjoy the sub-zero temperatures???

Thats true he didn't lie to Canadian Immigration, but then again he is a traitor to his own country... why would you want a traitor to join your ranks? I personally dont want any turncoats in Canada, we have enough of those already.

"Traitor"??? Strong word. "Traitor" implies betrayal or treason. "Deserter" would be more accurate. When you consider he tried to object to his assignment in Iraq through the legal military channels, and was soundly ignored, IMO that mitigates matters somewhat.

As for your statements about having turncoats in Canada, I agree. The Bloc Quebecois, for example. Sworn in to Parliament, and yet their stated agenda is to tear away part of the country.

Never did Bush lie about Iraq, you can't prove it so dont waste time by trying to speculate or assume anything.

"The war is over". How long ago did he say that???

When did he say that? You can't prove anything so please stop acting like you can.

Okay, so it was one of cabinet. Don't make me spend hours searching to simply re-hash an issue that has been hashed over so many times before. I'd rather concede the bloody point as it's not all that relevant to this thread.

Actually that was a very bad responce to a very real issue. The Canadian military is in shambles, the Canadian economy is also in shambles, our government embarrasses us consistently on the global stage, and our relations with our closest and most important allies has never been worse in the last century.

4 points here. Military: I agree, it's in bad shape. Needs money, equipment and manpower.

Economy: It's been worse. It actually seems to be on the upswing.

Government: Embarassment on the world stage??? Exactly how???

Canada-US relations: They've been better, They've been worse. Aside from our stance on Iraq, what has Canada done to worsen relations???

And our esteemed leader of the Right, Mr Harper, is so much more reasonable and resolute.

Please do expound on this, since you seem to think Harper is such a threat to Canada... how do you reason this? Have you seen him in power? Have you noticed scandals at his hands? What exactly has Harper done that makes you believe him to be so damaging if elected?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "threat". The implication I made was regarding how "reasonable" harper is. There's a thread in this forum about some comments Harper made a while back. Go read the thread, then tell me how reasonable you think he is.

There were several reasons he invaded Iraq, maybe you should know a subject before debating it.

Obviously there were many reasons. I'd like to hear what they are. Unfortunately, we've been given so many "valid reasons" already, the truth will probably unrecognizable if and when it ever comes out.

As for the World Wars, you are right we did it to stop a madman... but I believe the point your quoted poster was trying to make is that the very ideals, morals, and principles those service men/women fought and died for are now seemingly taken for granted in our current society.. even to the point of being ignored or outlawed.

In it's original context, I don't think it was any such thing. It was just another "damn pinko" blather, which was totally unnecessary.

This is the 3rd time in a single post you have chosen to attack his use of the word 'pinko'. That is truly pathetic, please learn to debate or stop wasting everyone's time (yes, it does take time to read through that dribble).

4th time, this is disgusting. Just ignore the word, how hard is it to do that?

5th?? Wow, you really must not have much more to talk about... I will ignore any more of these pointless quotes.

That's because it's the 3rd, 4th and 5th times (s)he's used the word in a single post.

Call it a mission. I'll be doing the same to anyone who starts repeatedly spouting lines like "chickenhawks" or "neo-cons" or "nazis".

As for being "pathetic", if one cannot debate without stooping to base insults, then one should go back to the schoolyard with all the other children who just want to stand around calling each other names.

The valid points were addressed with respect, the insults were treated with contempt.

I must be missing something here. I had no idea that Canada was now your sole property.

Remind me again exactly how you came to be our sovereign ruler???

Thats true he/she isn't, but he/she does have the right to express his/her frustration with the obvious ignorance of a great number of Canadians. Dependance on the CBC for 'unbiased' newcasting has left a generation of Canadians that would rather be emotionally devoid of facts rather than face the truth.

He/she can express his/her frustration in a civil fashion. "Get the hell out of my country" is hardly an example of civil discourse.

Your CBC comment is irrelevant to this conversation. They are hardly the only news source in teh country. You are welcome to watch CTV or Global or any of the American network news channels if you so desire.

[Hawk]

caesar if you refuse to read my post and would rather emotionally rant at me please take it elsewhere.

I explained his supposed 'invention' of new reasons, you are basing that one how the media covered the Iraqi war. CBC perhaps? haha

The same goes for your other post addressed to me, you just regurgitated what pocketrocket said earlier in more poorly chosen words.. stop backtracking.

Next I will address PocketRocket's reply

[Hawk]

And a man holding a smoking gun while standing over a body with a bullet hole is obviously a murderer.

Why is it then that in some such scenarios, a man in that position has been found innocent???

He'll be a criminal when he is tried and convicted.

A man holding a smoking gun while standing over a body has the benefit of the doubt, while someone that deserts the army does not. There is no possiblity he 'didn't' desert the army, that was a terrible example.

I would think that my point was obvious. He's far from being the first. That part of my previous antagonist's post was irrelevant. It is not a crime to join the army to get an education, he was trying to make it sound like it is a crime.

Your right its not a crime, but it is a crime to desert the army... the whole reason they offer those benefits is to provide an extra motivational factor for new recruits, that doesn't mean they are offering free stuff for nothing. Far from that, they still expect the people they give free education to serve their time with the army, and the soldiers who deserted voluntarily signed up and knew the risks involved. They have a job to do, and they ran away from it.

Oh, this is rich. Hintzman is a criminal without the benefit of his day in court, according to yourself and a few others.

But the US is not engaged in an illegal war because there is "not enough proof", even though many nations, and UN members, and, in fact, many American citizens, seem to think so.

Should the USA be put on trial???

Secondly, if the USA is using the UN resolutions as a justification to attack Iraq, then it must mean the UN is somehow relevant.

But Bush said the UN is NOT relevant.

Which is it??? Can't have it both ways.

Your thinking is skewed, because you see the difference between Hintzman and the USA's 'illegal war' is that there is no possiblity that Hintzman didn't desert the army.. That is the crime he commited, so what is the point of a trial? Is it not to determine if the accused is guilty of the crime? Is the crime not deserting? Tell me how a trial is going to prove he didn't desert. Exactly.

As for the USA and the UN, your right about the world thinking it was a bad move... but I dont think so, and neither does the majority of US citizens.

So I guess it could be reasoned that if there was truly enough evidence against the USA, because of the global animosity against them, that a coalition would have been formed against them. Last I knew that hasn't happened, meaning the proof is inconclusive at best.

Opinion is not fact, so global opinion doesn't mean a whole lot to anyone that likes independant thought.

"Traitor"??? Strong word. "Traitor" implies betrayal or treason. "Deserter" would be more accurate. When you consider he tried to object to his assignment in Iraq through the legal military channels, and was soundly ignored, IMO that mitigates matters somewhat.

As for your statements about having turncoats in Canada, I agree. The Bloc Quebecois, for example. Sworn in to Parliament, and yet their stated agenda is to tear away part of the country.

Main Entry: traitor

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: deserter

Synonyms: apostate, back-stabber, backslider, Benedict Arnold, betrayer, conspirator, copperhead, deceiver, defector, deserter, double-crosser, fifth columnist, fink, hypocrite, imposter, informer, intriguer, Judas, miscreant, narc, plotter, quisling, rat, rat fink, rebel, renegade, snake, sneak, snitch, snitcher, spy, squealer, stool pigeon, stoolie, tattletale, traducer, treasonist, turncoat, two-timer, whistle-blower, wolf

Antonyms: loyalist

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)

Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

As a side note, I would like to know why someone would join the mlitary if they were against war? Its not up to the soldiers to determine if the war is just enough to fight for, that is up to the elected officials. If they dont want to fight whoever the elected officials send them to fight they should not have joined up in the first place, rather than wasting tax dollars and stealing free education.

We are agreed on the Bloc, I can't believe Canada allowed them to become a federal party.

"The war is over". How long ago did he say that???

The war IS over, the ruling government was taken out of power and now all that left there is civil unreset. That does not constitute as war, therefore he didn't lie as the war is actually over... now is just the cleanup and stopping of insurrection.

Okay, so it was one of cabinet. Don't make me spend hours searching to simply re-hash an issue that has been hashed over so many times before. I'd rather concede the bloody point as it's not all that relevant to this thread.

Fair enough.

4 points here. Military: I agree, it's in bad shape. Needs money, equipment and manpower.

Economy: It's been worse. It actually seems to be on the upswing.

Government: Embarassment on the world stage??? Exactly how???

Canada-US relations: They've been better, They've been worse. Aside from our stance on Iraq, what has Canada done to worsen relations???

Economy: I suppose you could speculate the Canadian economy is on the upswing since the market crash during the great depression. Other than that you will have to provide a rough estimate of the time period or I can't really be sure what you are talking about.

Government: Namecalling, childish sulking, arrogance, need I go on?

Canada-US relations: A number of things, I will only mention a couple as I dont want to write an essay.

1) Allowing our leaders to portray very anti-American attitudes, to the point of insulting them verbally.

2) Failing to at least stand by the USA during Iraq, we may not have all agreed it was the right move but we should have at least offered aid to the troops that WERE going right off the bat.

3) Martin leads the USA along making them think he is ok with the missile defence plan, then at the last second changes his mind and throws out the plan entirely like a total buffoon. But I suppose that is to be expected of socialist flipfloppers.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "threat". The implication I made was regarding how "reasonable" harper is. There's a thread in this forum about some comments Harper made a while back. Go read the thread, then tell me how reasonable you think he is.

I did as you asked and skimmed over the previous posts, I also used the search function in my browser to find references to harper on page 1 and 2 and found not a single one... please quote it if it truly does exist. Until then my point remains.

Obviously there were many reasons. I'd like to hear what they are. Unfortunately, we've been given so many "valid reasons" already, the truth will probably unrecognizable if and when it ever comes out.

Then it wouldn't be the truth now would it? The truth is already out there, the Iraqi invasion was justified, and in 20 years Democrats will be trumpeting like it was there idea in the first place lol

In it's original context, I don't think it was any such thing. It was just another "damn pinko" blather, which was totally unnecessary.

Yes it was unnecesary, but if you ignore personal attacks and look at the context of the inults you can usually figure out what people are trying to say. Since he hasn't expounded on my interpretation I will assume it was fairely accurate.

That's because it's the 3rd, 4th and 5th times (s)he's used the word in a single post.

Call it a mission. I'll be doing the same to anyone who starts repeatedly spouting lines like "chickenhawks" or "neo-cons" or "nazis".

As for being "pathetic", if one cannot debate without stooping to base insults, then one should go back to the schoolyard with all the other children who just want to stand around calling each other names.

The valid points were addressed with respect, the insults were treated with contempt.

It would have been far more viable to simply address them all in a single place, rather than sporadically between your replies.

He/she can express his/her frustration in a civil fashion. "Get the hell out of my country" is hardly an example of civil discourse.

Your CBC comment is irrelevant to this conversation. They are hardly the only news source in teh country. You are welcome to watch CTV or Global or any of the American network news channels if you so desire.

Of course there are choices, the CBC was just a single example since so many people that I have talked to watch that as their only source of news. It was relevant to the discussion since the original poster was displaying frustration about what he believes is the corruption and downfall of the country he loves, based on the context I brought in the CBC since it has biased news coverage for the very political spectrum that he believes is killing Canada. I tend to agree with him, since if you just look at the stats there is certainly something very wrong with where Canada is going.

[Guest eureka]

There is no longer any argument about the illegality of the war. Every competent international body has said it was. The war was about, as Caesar said, control and oil: American hegemony in the Middle East, a doctrine first espoused by Kissinger and made explicit in the New American Century policy of the Bush circle, WRITTEN before 9/11.

It was also, as is becoming increasingly clear, about the personal ambitions for glory of Bush.

These people may have "deserted" the American Army - as did thousands of others (there are that many in recent years) - but, in doing so they were obeying a higher law than that of the USA. They were obeying international law and the laws of civilization. They were acting as men of conscience have done for millenia.

What is obvious in this discussion is that the vitriol against recent American "deserters" springs from a sublime ignorance of both American recruiring for its forces and the nature of a modern army.

These people were lied to by recruiters. Theye were lied to about the prospects in the forces and what they would be expected to do. When they were at training camps, they were not told that there was a mechanism to obtain dischaege for unsuitable or unadaptable recruits. Those who did know of it were denied (mostly) discharges that they were entitled to.

Their "contracts" were invalid since they did not include the verbal promises or even the rights and entitlements that they do, in law, have. Most "deserters" never discovered their rights. Those that did were unaware of them until it was too late to exercise them and desertion became their only option.

These deserters are also not cowards any more than criminals. It is a fact that in war, most soldiers up to the Korean war were afraid of killing, not of dying. In every war in history until Korea, the majority of troops never fired a shot at an enemy. It is against human nature.

It was the recognition of this that turned training of troops into a psychologicalk conditioning that trained people to be killers not to fighters. Since that time, the emphasis of training has been to dehumanize fighting men so that they would kill and find pleasure in it.

Many of the "deserters" are men who were not susceptible to such a loss of their personality: to a change into predatory animals. Most of those who chose to "desert" did so to retain their humanity and to protest what they had come to realize was the unwarranted slaughter of an innocent people for nothing but the glorification of their own nation's leaders.

They may have committed a crime in the eyes of their leaders: a crime that will be wiped out when their leaders are brought to justice even if only the justice of history.

They have committed no crime against Canada or one that could be recognized as a crime by Canada since we, like most of the world, consider the crime was the invasion of Iraq.

Those few who have come to Canada should be given refuge from a tyrannical home state. It is a black day when we refuse refuge to honourable men.

[caesar]

caesar if you refuse to read my post and would rather emotionally rant at me please take it elsewhere.

I explained his supposed 'invention' of new reasons, you are basing that one how the media covered the Iraqi war. CBC perhaps? haha

I read enough to know that you do not listen to any REAL news sources. You explained his reasons for always changing his reasons for his illegal invasion of Iraq.

I did get my information from many many sources; Canadian, British, and American. I did serious research during that period as I was on a serious, well moderated forum hosted by Canada's Foreign Affairs Dept.

I did read articles suggested by those supporting the Bush lead illegal invasion of Iraq.

You, my dear Hawk, should take your own advice and find your information from a variety of sources. Don't just read and believe that which suits your narrow outlook.

[PocketRocket]

Good Morning, HAWK. I can see we're going to get along well. We don't agree on some things, but we seem to have enough respect to address each other in a dignified fashion.

Here we go.....

  A man holding a smoking gun while standing over a body has the benefit of the doubt, while someone that deserts the army does not. There is no possiblity he 'didn't' desert the army, that was a terrible example. 

Oh, I don't think the example was all that bad. The element of doubt is so small as to be infinitismal. Motivation, however, can be a factor when determining guilt or innocence, ie; was it self defense???

In the case of desertion, we have to consider a man's concience. This has been established since, and possibly before, Viet Nam.

Personally, if I had been in the American military, I would have had no problem going to Afghanistan. I went on record in many forums supporting that war.

Iraq is a different kettle of fish entirely.

I have heard Hintzman and his attorny making his case on radio, and found myself in agreement with him.

  Your right its not a crime, but it is a crime to desert the army... the whole reason they offer those benefits is to provide an extra motivational factor for new recruits, that doesn't mean they are offering free stuff for nothing. Far from that, they still expect the people they give free education to serve their time with the army, and the soldiers who deserted voluntarily signed up and knew the risks involved. They have a job to do, and they ran away from it. 

Young, idealistic people who want to serve "in defense of" their country are to be admired for joining the forces.

But in what way was the invasion of Iraq serving the defense needs of the USA???

I agree with you that a soldier should be prepared to fight and die for his country, as should we all.

But in the case of Iraq, the line was blurred beyond recognition. They were told "Go over there. Fight. Die". For no apparent reason. Iraq was hardly a threat to the USA.

Your thinking is skewed, because you see the difference between Hintzman and the USA's 'illegal war' is that there is no possiblity that Hintzman didn't desert the army.. That is the crime he commited, so what is the point of a trial? Is it not to determine if the accused is guilty of the crime? Is the crime not deserting? Tell me how a trial is going to prove he didn't desert. Exactly.

See reply above. Conciencious objector is still a title/label that holds some water. In Canada, we have given refuge to conciencious objectors in the past. I have no problem with doing so now. (Did I spell "conciencious" correctly???)

  As for the USA and the UN, your right about the world thinking it was a bad move... but I dont think so, and neither does the majority of US citizens. 

For the record, I do not think that taking out Saddam was a bad thing. On the contrary.

My beef is with the fact that GWB chose to do it uniliaterally, using the UN sanctions as a reason/excuse, even though he turned a blind eye to the UN's wishes to NOT invaded. Hypocrisy.

If the USA would have waited it out a bit, the UN would have come around. Even the UN would only have taken so much of Saddam's B.S.

Be that as it may, the "majority" of US citizens who agree with the war MAY be 51%. Hardly a concensus.

Keep in mind also, a lot of people will believe whatever the hell they are told by whoever is in power.

GWB's propaganda machine did a good job in painting Iraq as a potential, or even imminent, threat.

  So I guess it could be reasoned that if there was truly enough evidence against the USA, because of the global animosity against them, that a coalition would have been formed against them. Last I knew that hasn't happened, meaning the proof is inconclusive at best. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "coalition" in this context.

A military coalition??? Like a bunch of countries would get together and attack the US??? Or do you mean several nations getting together to lay legal charges??? Either way, the USA is such a military/economic powerhouse, that she can throw her weight around with impunity if she so chooses. Most nations will go so far as to expres extreme disapproval, but for the sake of diplomacy, probably do not want to push things quite so far.

Who knows???

But in terms of "legality" under international law, what really credible justification was given for the invasion??? Was the USA attacked by Iraq??? No. Was she about to be attacked by Iraq??? I haven't heard of any imminent attacks....

  Opinion is not fact, so global opinion doesn't mean a whole lot to anyone that likes independant thought. 

In my opinion, truer words were never spoke.

Regarding the definition of "Traitor" you provided, I notice it's source was a thesaurus.

Good thinking there. I checked a dictionary before my last response, and while the word "deserter" was included in the definition, it was way down the list, below "turncoat", "betrayer" etc.

I chose not to use it simply to avoid throwing more fuel on the fire.

Nice work, though.

  As a side note, I would like to know why someone would join the mlitary if they were against war? Its not up to the soldiers to determine if the war is just enough to fight for, that is up to the elected officials. If they dont want to fight whoever the elected officials send them to fight they should not have joined up in the first place, rather than wasting tax dollars and stealing free education. 

I am against war. I would, however, gladly fight in defense of my country.

It takes at least two countries to fight a war, but it only takes one to start it.

As I mentioned earlier, many young people have a romantic notion about defending their country, and sign up for that reason.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, Iraq does not fall under that category.

  We are agreed on the Bloc, I can't believe Canada allowed them to become a federal party.

Oh good. Now we can be friends. Seriously, I don't understand how someone can take the oath of Parliament, when their party's stated objective is to split from the country.

"The war is over". How long ago did he say that???

The war IS over, the ruling government was taken out of power and now all that left there is civil unreset. That does not constitute as war, therefore he didn't lie as the war is actually over... now is just the cleanup and stopping of insurrection.

Well, NOW it SEEMS to be over. Let's hope it is. But after GWB spoke those words, it seemed that the fighting actually escalated beyond what it had been prior to that little speech.

Okay, so it was one of cabinet. Don't make me spend hours searching to simply re-hash an issue that has been hashed over so many times before. I'd rather concede the bloody point as it's not all that relevant to this thread. 

Fair enough.

Hmm. Very cool. I like your style, my friend.

A) Government: Namecalling, childish sulking, arrogance, need I go on?

Canada-US relations: A number of things, I will only mention a couple as I dont want to write an essay.

1) Allowing our leaders to portray very anti-American attitudes, to the point of insulting them verbally.

2) Failing to at least stand by the USA during Iraq, we may not have all agreed it was the right move but we should have at least offered aid to the troops that WERE going right off the bat.

3) Martin leads the USA along making them think he is ok with the missile defence plan, then at the last second changes his mind and throws out the plan entirely like a total buffoon. But I suppose that is to be expected of socialist flipfloppers. 

A & 1) I agree that some of the statements made by members of parliament were childish. But that seems to have become the norm. This statement is not meant to excuse such behaviour. I can't even watch question period anymore without getting thoroughtly disgusted. The behaviour of our representatives in Parliament is shockingly childish.

2) Aid in what regard??? From what I recall, we sent a couple small ships that basically sat around doing nothing. But her, isn't that moral support?? But again, if you are NOT in support of a war, why send anything??? It's not like the USA needs our help to supply their forces, far from it.

3) I wasn't aware he "led them along". He may have been "considering" the plan. Nonetheless, if I say I will buy a car, and the, when I get to the carlot, the car will not run, then I do not feel obliged to fulfill my "promise", as it was made under the pecept that the car was working.

The BMD has yet to pass a single test. Would you have us buy a non-functional car???

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say "threat". The implication I made was regarding how "reasonable" harper is. There's a thread in this forum about some comments Harper made a while back. Go read the thread, then tell me how reasonable you think he is.

I did as you asked and skimmed over the previous posts, I also used the search function in my browser to find references to harper on page 1 and 2 and found not a single one... please quote it if it truly does exist. Until then my point remains.

Damn, I can't find it either. It may have been in another forum site, I was in a hurry when responding yesterday. I'll try to locate it and post a link. My apologies for causing you to search for nothing.

  Then it wouldn't be the truth now would it? The truth is already out there, the Iraqi invasion was justified, and in 20 years Democrats will be trumpeting like it was there idea in the first place lol 

Saddam was an ass. Agreed. He needed to go. Agreed. But again, why didn't GWB and his crew simply say "We're fed up with Saddam, we're gonna take him out". That, I could respect.

But this "the ends justify the means" mentality is scary.

Now please be clear that I am NOT comparing GWB to Hitler, that's not my style, but consider that Hitler's stated goal, raising the Aryan race to prominence, was an admirable one. His means, on the other hand, were tragically deplorable.

9/11 is another example of such.

The ends cannot justify the means. That road leads straight to hell.

It would have been far more viable to simply address them (pinko statements) all in a single place, rather than sporadically between your replies.

Yeah, but my way is more fun. Seriously, if it was something he/she had done in that single post, no problem. But I recently noticed that the person in question had several posts out there, all peppered liberally with "pinko". And I REALLY mean liberally.

I choose to attack the word, as I do ANY derogatory and insulting word that is overused.

In other posts, I have adressed them as a group. It made no difference. Now, I choose to address them humorously.

Anyway, I gotta get dressed and get to work.

Thanks for your replies, it's nice exchanging thoughts with you.

As I stated earlier, we may disagree, but we manage to keep it civil and respectful, and I can respect that.

Have a good day.

[seabee]

QUOTE (Hawk @ Mar 28 2005, 02:48 PM)

  We are agreed on the Bloc, I can't believe Canada allowed them to become a federal party.

Oh good. Now we can be friends. Seriously, I don't understand how someone can take the oath of Parliament, when their party's stated objective is to split from the country.

The Bloc's stated objective is Québec's independance. It is neither interest nor mandate to worry about what happens to Canada after Québec's independance. Whatever happens to Canada then is entirely up to the federal government and the other provinces. All sorts of solutions are available to "save" Canada, such as restructuring it along the European Union lines.

It may be necessary, no matter what happens to Québec, to change and modernize a constitutional act into a real constitution, one not based on a very antiquated monarchichal system of a foreign country. Québec may be just the leader.

[Hawk]

There is no longer any argument about the illegality of the war. Every competent international body has said it was. The war was about, as Caesar said, control and oil: American hegemony in the Middle East, a doctrine first espoused by Kissinger and made explicit in the New American Century policy of the Bush circle, WRITTEN before 9/11.

It was also, as is becoming increasingly clear, about the personal ambitions for glory of Bush.

These people may have "deserted" the American Army - as did thousands of others (there are that many in recent years) - but, in doing so they were obeying a higher law than that of the USA. They were obeying international law and the laws of civilization. They were acting as men of conscience have done for millenia.

What is obvious in this discussion is that the vitriol against recent American "deserters" springs from a sublime ignorance of both American recruiring for its forces and the nature of a modern army.

These people were lied to by recruiters. Theye were lied to about the prospects in the forces and what they would be expected to do. When they were at training camps, they were not told that there was a mechanism to obtain dischaege for unsuitable or unadaptable recruits. Those who did know of it were denied (mostly) discharges that they were entitled to.

Their "contracts" were invalid since they did not include the verbal promises or even the rights and entitlements that they do, in law, have. Most "deserters" never discovered their rights. Those that did were unaware of them until it was too late to exercise them and desertion became their only option.

These deserters are also not cowards any more than criminals. It is a fact that in war, most soldiers up to the Korean war were afraid of killing, not of dying. In every war in history until Korea, the majority of troops never fired a shot at an enemy. It is against human nature.

It was the recognition of this that turned training of troops into a psychologicalk conditioning that trained people to be killers not to fighters. Since that time, the emphasis of training has been to dehumanize fighting men so that they would kill and find pleasure in it.

Many of the "deserters" are men who were not susceptible to such a loss of their personality: to a change into predatory animals. Most of those who chose to "desert" did so to retain their humanity and to protest what they had come to realize was the unwarranted slaughter of an innocent people for nothing but the glorification of their own nation's leaders.

They may have committed a crime in the eyes of their leaders: a crime that will be wiped out when their leaders are brought to justice even if only the justice of history.

They have committed no crime against Canada or one that could be recognized as a crime by Canada since we, like most of the world, consider the crime was the invasion of Iraq.

Those few who have come to Canada should be given refuge from a tyrannical home state. It is a black day when we refuse refuge to honourable men.

Fascinating display of complete emotion, you did not address me previous posts so please keep your emotions in check or break it down so I dont have to search through this mess of rants and opinion.

I await an actual response.

[Hawk]

caesar if you refuse to read my post and would rather emotionally rant at me please take it elsewhere.

I explained his supposed 'invention' of new reasons, you are basing that one how the media covered the Iraqi war. CBC perhaps? haha

I read enough to know that you do not listen to any REAL news sources. You explained his reasons for always changing his reasons for his illegal invasion of Iraq.

I did get my information from many many sources; Canadian, British, and American. I did serious research during that period as I was on a serious, well moderated forum hosted by Canada's Foreign Affairs Dept.

I did read articles suggested by those supporting the Bush lead illegal invasion of Iraq.

You, my dear Hawk, should take your own advice and find your information from a variety of sources. Don't just read and believe that which suits your narrow outlook.

caesar you just spent a portion of your life doing what you do best, opinionated posting. Point out anything in your previous post that has anything to do with mine and PocketRockets discussion, or should I say, anything that adds to the conversation.

Is that too hard?

[Hawk]

Oh, I don't think the example was all that bad. The element of doubt is so small as to be infinitismal. Motivation, however, can be a factor when determining guilt or innocence, ie; was it self defense???

In the case of desertion, we have to consider a man's concience. This has been established since, and possibly before, Viet Nam.

Personally, if I had been in the American military, I would have had no problem going to Afghanistan. I went on record in many forums supporting that war.

Iraq is a different kettle of fish entirely.

I have heard Hintzman and his attorny making his case on radio, and found myself in agreement with him.

Of course, but the issue we are discussing doesn't have the option of getting charges changed due to 'motivation'. Unlike a murder, where the sentance and guilt/innocence can be affected by motivation, desertion is very black and white. You desert, you are a traitor and a criminal. End of Story. Motivation isn't something legally binding in that context, and aren't socialists all about legalities?

Young, idealistic people who want to serve "in defense of" their country are to be admired for joining the forces.

But in what way was the invasion of Iraq serving the defense needs of the USA???

I agree with you that a soldier should be prepared to fight and die for his country, as should we all.

But in the case of Iraq, the line was blurred beyond recognition. They were told "Go over there. Fight. Die". For no apparent reason. Iraq was hardly a threat to the USA.

I never claimed invading Iraq was serving the defense needs of the USA, don't bring up new issues under the cover of the current discussion.

We are discussing the legality of soldiers deserting the armed forces, not the legality of the Iraqi war.

I am glad we agree on a couple points at least hehe

See reply above. Conciencious objector is still a title/label that holds some water. In Canada, we have given refuge to conciencious objectors in the past. I have no problem with doing so now. (Did I spell "conciencious" correctly???)

So your argument is that because some wrong has been done in the past it is ok to repeat it? That would at least explain the re-election of the Liberal government so many times haha...

If not please expound as I can't really respond to this without at least one example of a relevant conciencious objector.

For the record, I do not think that taking out Saddam was a bad thing. On the contrary.

My beef is with the fact that GWB chose to do it uniliaterally, using the UN sanctions as a reason/excuse, even though he turned a blind eye to the UN's wishes to NOT invaded. Hypocrisy.

If the USA would have waited it out a bit, the UN would have come around. Even the UN would only have taken so much of Saddam's B.S.

Be that as it may, the "majority" of US citizens who agree with the war MAY be 51%. Hardly a concensus.

Keep in mind also, a lot of people will believe whatever the hell they are told by whoever is in power.

GWB's propaganda machine did a good job in painting Iraq as a potential, or even imminent, threat.

Correct me if I am wrong but the USA did wait for the UN to do 'its thing' (Inspectors and such). But as I recall that was dragging on to infinity with no end in sight, while more and more time was wasted 'talking' about direct violations of UN sanctions/resolutions (17 as far as I can recall). Source: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

What is the point of an international 'peacekeeping' organization that will not uphold its own resolutions/sanctions? Truth is there is no point, it is just a very large and very expensive organization with no real purpose other than constant never-ending discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coalition" in this context.

A military coalition??? Like a bunch of countries would get together and attack the US??? Or do you mean several nations getting together to lay legal charges??? Either way, the USA is such a military/economic powerhouse, that she can throw her weight around with impunity if she so chooses. Most nations will go so far as to expres extreme disapproval, but for the sake of diplomacy, probably do not want to push things quite so far.

Who knows???

But in terms of "legality" under international law, what really credible justification was given for the invasion??? Was the USA attacked by Iraq??? No. Was she about to be attacked by Iraq??? I haven't heard of any imminent attacks....

So you support the ousting of a tyrannical dictator but you dont support the Iraq invasion? Make up your mind please.

If the USA really was such a danger to the global community they would fight back, look at WW2. So yes, military or otherwise, a coalition would have been formed if any REAL evidence of misconduct, corruption, or conspiracy was found. It is a legal war, just France and its buddies are a little peaved that they can't steal oil anymore and are making a fuss about it.

In my opinion, truer words were never spoke.

Regarding the definition of "Traitor" you provided, I notice it's source was a thesaurus.

Good thinking there. I checked a dictionary before my last response, and while the word "deserter" was included in the definition, it was way down the list, below "turncoat", "betrayer" etc.

I chose not to use it simply to avoid throwing more fuel on the fire.

Nice work, though.

Thank you, likewise.

I am against war. I would, however, gladly fight in defense of my country.

It takes at least two countries to fight a war, but it only takes one to start it.

As I mentioned earlier, many young people have a romantic notion about defending their country, and sign up for that reason.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, Iraq does not fall under that category.

Thats true USA was not directly attacked by Iraq, however that doesn't justify the desertion of the army. There are other reasons the war was started (the most important being the liberation of the Iraqi people, and the possibility of WMD).

Nothing can justify the desertion of the army because the contract they signed with the Army didn't leave that option, and they commited a crime by breaking that agreement whether they are justified in their mind or not.

Oh good. Now we can be friends. Seriously, I don't understand how someone can take the oath of Parliament, when their party's stated objective is to split from the country.

LoL too true too true

Well, NOW it SEEMS to be over. Let's hope it is. But after GWB spoke those words, it seemed that the fighting actually escalated beyond what it had been prior to that little speech.

Intensity of insurrection doesn't constitute war, however if Bush had said 'the fight is over' I would agree he is lying. The war was won, but the battle was not. He even said that Iraq was going to take alot of work to settle down, and I respect him even more since he has stuck with the reconstruction (and coincidently his word) regardless of the harm it does to his public image abroad.

A 1) I agree that some of the statements made by members of parliament were childish. But that seems to have become the norm. This statement is not meant to excuse such behaviour. I can't even watch question period anymore without getting thoroughtly disgusted. The behaviour of our representatives in Parliament is shockingly childish.

2) Aid in what regard??? From what I recall, we sent a couple small ships that basically sat around doing nothing. But her, isn't that moral support?? But again, if you are NOT in support of a war, why send anything??? It's not like the USA needs our help to supply their forces, far from it.

3) I wasn't aware he led them along. He may have been "considering" the plan. Nonetheless, if I say I will buy a car, and the, when I get to the carlot, the car will not run, then I do not feel obliged to fulfill my "promise", as it was made under the pecept that the car was working.

The BMD has yet to pass a single test. Would you have us buy a non-functional car???

1) Exactly

2) Its not a question of whether or not the USA 'needs' our help, its more an issue of whether we offered it. North America is hated whether Canadians want to admit it or not, we are right up there with the Americans since we are a 'have' nation almost identical society-wise.

We have to provide a united front if we hope to survive.

3) Waiting until the very last minute to flatline the missile defence was considered leading, since I recall news outlets talking about the controversy surrounding Martin's seeming support of the Missile Defence.

If I am wrong I apologise.

However I still cannot fathom why Canada wouldn't join in an agreement that cost us nothing and improved our completely useless defences.

Damn, I can't find it either. It may have been in another forum site, I was in a hurry when responding yesterday. I'll try to locate it and post a link. My apologies for causing you to search for nothing.

Accepted.

Saddam was an ass. Agreed. He needed to go. Agreed. But again, why didn't GWB and his crew simply say "We're fed up with Saddam, we're gonna take him out". That, I could respect.

But this "the ends justify the means" mentality is scary.

Now please be clear that I am NOT comparing GWB to Hitler, that's not my style, but consider that Hitler's stated goal, raising the Aryan race to prominence, was an admirable one. His means, on the other hand, were tragically deplorable.

9/11 is another example of such.

The ends cannot justify the means. That road leads straight to hell.

If they said that the entire world would explode in rage about the USA rampaging around taking out people for no point other than 'to take them out'. There needed to be a reason, so instead of supplying only one they supplied a few.

Its true the end should not justify the means, but last I checked the end didn't justify the means. The end result was the freedom of the Iraqi people, more stability in the ME, and the overthrow of a terrorist-funding dictator. The means was a war since nothing else worked.

Hitler believed in dominating and subjugating the entire world under his Aryan race, that is slightly different than Bush trying to provide democracy to some Arabs lol

Anyway, I gotta get dressed and get to work.

Thanks for your replies, it's nice exchanging thoughts with you.

As I stated earlier, we may disagree, but we manage to keep it civil and respectful, and I can respect that.

Have a good day.

Agreed, and likewise to you =)

[Guest eureka]

That was a response, Hawk. It was a complete response containing the heart of this question.

That it is beyond you to think a little below the surface perhaps explains why you are a supporter of armed aggression and the deceptions that are supposed to justify it.

Perhaps I am too optimistic in expecting something more than political ranting in these forums.

[Black Dog]

Thank You President Bush for liberating Iraq and stopping the murders and genocide that Saddam Hussein and his pinko supporters from Canada from totally destroying the population and culture of Iraq and finish building his WMD.

The remnants of the WMD are hidden in Syria la di dah dah. You Canadian pinkos don't like that and that is why you vote Liberal.

May I direct you, sir, to the discussion on the subject of WMD over here where silimlar claims have been made and thouroughly debunked.

You pinkos are sickening! Get the hell out of my country!!

Oh yeah? I you name written on it.

Actually it was started for a number of reasons, the only problem you are experiencing is that the media concentrated on one thing at a time.. leading to the impression that the Bush administration was changing its' story, and since most of the media outlets are run by anti-American socialists (or at least funded by them) its not hard to imagine why they would want to paint the Republicans this way.

Jesus H. Jumping Christ on a pogo stick. This is the funniest thing I've read in a long-ass time.

Can you tell me who these "socialists" running Time Warner (CNN), General Electric (NBC), Walt Disney Co.

(ABC), Viacom (CBS) and News Corporation (Fox), are?

Never did Bush lie about Iraq, you can't prove it so dont waste time by trying to speculate or assume anything.

Translation: "Bush totally lied about Iraq, but please don't show any proof he did, because it would make me look dumb."

Sorry:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action."

Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).

When did he say that? You can't prove anything so please stop acting like you can.

Actually it wasn't Bush, but Rummy who said:

We know where they (WMD) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

This is the 3rd time in a single post you have chosen to attack his use of the word 'pinko'. That is truly pathetic, please learn to debate or stop wasting everyone's time (yes, it does take time to read through that dribble)

Hmm. D'ya think that calling people "pinko" is a sign of a good debater? It is not.

Please do expound on this, since you seem to think Harper is such a threat to Canada... how do you reason this? Have you seen him in power? Have you noticed scandals at his hands? What exactly has Harper done that makes you believe him to be so damaging if elected?

So basically, we should give Harper a chance to f**k up the country in his own way? Naw. Harper won't be any better than the Liberals. The corruption and ethical bankruptcy of the political system won't change, but simply change hands.