I miss Reagan Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 First of all these "freedom fighters" are mostly Islamofacists from other countries, not Iraqis. Second do you not consider blowing up Mosques and lines of local police recruits terrorizing people. How about repeatedly attacking Shiites for the purpose of starting a civil war. Ya, real genuine freedom fighters, all they want is peace in Iraq I don't think you should be getting your news from the GOP homepage. Only a small part of the overall insurgency is related to terrorist organizations. Not to say that the various factions aren't employing terror tactics -- they do, including the blowing up of mosques and killing innocent people to terrorize entire neighborhoods, etc. -- but these are not the same Islamofascists your talk radio brethren bleat about all day long. There are different factions at work in Iraq and it only makes you look naive when you lump all of them in under the "Islamofascist" label. I've seen some intelligence estimates that put the al Qaeda-in-Iraq headcount at just around 1000. The vast majority of the insurgency is made up of the two main warring factions: Baathist Sunnis and Shia Militias. Tell me junior, what are the specific head counts of Jaish Mohammed, Ansar al-Islam, or member groups of the Mujahideen Shura Council? How about the fact that 80% of the suicide bombings in Iraq are carried out by foreign fighters. I apologize for my naivety but I just can help being a little bit skeptical of terror apologist viewpoints. We all appreciate the Air America talking points but how about a little more backup and a little less of the "spoiled rich kids" comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think it's great that we are now harbouring deserters as it opens up so many new career options. I think I will join our military, get in shape, collect paycheques, learn a trade, maybe have them pay for another degree and then when I am about to be shipped off to Afghanistan I’ll quit. What a brilliant idea. Why isn’t everyone doing this? I can easily find moral grounds for not going to any war or peacekeeping mission. If I really worked at it I could probably find some ethical reason why I shouldn’t help clean up after hurricanes and ice storms too.I don’t agree with the war in Iraq but I am vehemently against deserters and supporting deserters. If they were draft dodgers I would let them stay in my home, but they signed up. These people were aware of both the risks and the rewards. They happily accepted the rewards and then they shirked their responsibility and ran away. However, if you sign up in the army believing that whenever you will be called to duty it will be in the interests of freedom, but then find out that the whole thing was a sham from the start, one might have no choice but to follow their morals rather than some military loyalties. Some deserters had spent time in Iraq and said they were killing civilians all the time as they were not trained to distinguish between insurgent and civilian. The Republicans are geniuses - ever able to defend their horrific actions and policies by deflecting and twisting facts on the ground and domestically. It's amazing - a president can go through impeachment hearing for lying about oral sex while another president who starts a bloodbath and misleads his own nation can get elected a second time. But back to deserters, i think it is more courageous to follow your moral compas than to follow someone else's immoral bloodbath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 The Republicans are geniuses - ever able to defend their horrific actions and policies by deflecting and twisting facts on the ground and domestically. It's amazing - a president can go through impeachment hearing for lying about oral sex while another president who starts a bloodbath and misleads his own nation can get elected a second time. But back to deserters, i think it is more courageous to follow your moral compas than to follow someone else's immoral bloodbath. Yes speaking of deflecting and twisting facts, lets not forget to mention that said president who was impeached for lying about oral sex, did so while under oath during questioning about sexual harrasing Paula Jones. Some how you guys alway forget to mention that important part. You wouldn't be trying to destroy the context of the situation at all would you? Unfortunately this is why we have to play the game of deflection, in order to battle a overly left biased press which is seriously compromising the war on terror by distorting the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Oh that's rich...I mean really - trying to equate lying about oral sex while under oath with being responsible for the deaths of 25oo American soldiers (as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis)...it is no wonder people see the right as evil heartless pricks. I think a blow job would be good for Bush - maybe he'll learn to relax a little. And the war on terror is another can of worms altogether - declaring war on a word leaves the definition of terrorism up in the air, to be defined by Bush whenever he sees fit. And don't forget, the administration had promoted the bullshit connection between iraq and 911 through PR companies and windbag radio shows. They didn't refute the connection until it had been ingrained in half of the population. Like I said, evil geniuses (but I still can't believe you tried to equate the two....priceless!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyAC Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 I don’t agree with the war in Iraq but I am vehemently against deserters and supporting deserters.How much responsibility (or condemnation) do you place on the soldiers (non-deserters) in Iraq relative to the responsibility borne by the American administration? Responsibility Soldiers - 0% Administration - 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyAC Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 However, if you sign up in the army believing that whenever you will be called to duty it will be in the interests of freedom, but then find out that the whole thing was a sham from the start, one might have no choice but to follow their morals rather than some military loyalties. Some deserters had spent time in Iraq and said they were killing civilians all the time as they were not trained to distinguish between insurgent and civilian. I disagree with the war so I am barely off the fence on this issue. As a result of this illegal war the Iraqis will be freer than they were. Do the ends justify the means when the means are many thousands of dead bodies? I don’t know. What I do know is the soldiers who morally disagree with the actions of their country only have two choices. They can suck it up do their jobs and take their government to task when their tour is over, or quit and face a military trial. War is an ugly necessity and it will be for a long time to come. I wish it was simply a horror story of the past but that’s not the case. For military operations to be successful soldiers must carry out orders without question. They are part of team that depends on them, lives are at stake. By quitting they are putting the lives of their teammates in danger. As a country we cannot harbour an ally’s deserters while being silent about their actions in Iraq. I think Canada has two choices. Deport the deserters or accept them as refugees and publicly denounce the US occupation of Iraq. Either way we will have consequences to face as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 WHat do you think puts the lives of their comrades in more danger - deserting or torturing civilians? Many deserters could not stomach the actions of their fellow soldiers. Many could not stomach the actions of their commanding officers. Personally, I would rather desert than be forced to be put in a position where I am a murderer. But that's just me I suppose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyAC Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 WHat do you think puts the lives of their comrades in more danger - deserting or torturing civilians? Many deserters could not stomach the actions of their fellow soldiers. Many could not stomach the actions of their commanding officers. Personally, I would rather desert than be forced to be put in a position where I am a murderer. But that's just me I suppose... I might desert too it's hard to say without knowing what those soliders actually witnessed. However, I think I should then face the consequences for my actions and stand trial as a deserter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Her son willingly went to Iraq and re-enlisted and I agree, she's a dupe, and look who's supporting her - George Soros and his left wing propaganda machine. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1470024/posts Hmmmm, a lefty PR firm VS Fox News. I wonder which does more damage. Not to mention the several "think tanks" right wingers have at their disposal - and didn't the Bush administration hire a PR firm in 2000 to push out false info about Iraq? If you are going to cite something like this you should at least appear to try and be balanced. Cindy Sheehan jumped the shark a long time ago and is no longer effective at being an antiwar activist, she lost that focus a long time ago. Neither does she have any business in Canada encouraging illegal refugees to stay here. You don't generally bash your own country when on foreign soil either, (and not just in Canada) The deserters are volunteers, when you do that you accept orders no matter what, they can't pick and choose which orders they think they will obey, you don't join the army to play paintball they knew what can happen when you actually - you know - join an army. The insurgents are not freedom fighters, they are not fighting for freedom in any sense of the words. They are fighting for an Islamic theocracy which means killing innocent Iraqis indiscriminately as well. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=19117 However, none of the mainstream media accounts of this beatified mourner recognize her long history of extremist rhetoric, her close association with far-Left and anti-Semitic figures, or the way she has seemingly rewritten her own history when it suited her purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Oh that's rich...I mean really - trying to equate lying about oral sex while under oath with being responsible for the deaths of 25oo American soldiers (as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis)...it is no wonder people see the right as evil heartless pricks. And the war on terror is another can of worms altogether - declaring war on a word leaves the definition of terrorism up in the air, to be defined by Bush whenever he sees fit. And don't forget, the administration had promoted the bullshit connection between iraq and 911 through PR companies and windbag radio shows. They didn't refute the connection until it had been ingrained in half of the population. Like I said, evil geniuses (but I still can't believe you tried to equate the two....priceless!!!) Who are you talking to? You are the only one I see here comparing the Lewinsky situation to Bush. I think a blow job would be good for Bush - maybe he'll learn to relax a little. Classy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Well I did bring it up, in order to raise the question as to why Bush has not been impeached yet (there's still hope I suppose), but you decided in an earlier post to defend that Clinton was in fact brought to task for lying about head while under oath. So I would say I was speaking to you. And if pointing out that a blow job is relaxing is uncomfortable for you then I do apologize... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
America1 Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 WHat do you think puts the lives of their comrades in more danger - deserting or torturing civilians? Many deserters could not stomach the actions of their fellow soldiers. Many could not stomach the actions of their commanding officers. Personally, I would rather desert than be forced to be put in a position where I am a murderer. But that's just me I suppose... I think the # is 20 deserter out of a few hundred thousand who have served in Iraq and afghan. So there really aren't "many" deserters at all. So basically, what the hell are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 WHat do you think puts the lives of their comrades in more danger - deserting or torturing civilians? Many deserters could not stomach the actions of their fellow soldiers. Many could not stomach the actions of their commanding officers. Personally, I would rather desert than be forced to be put in a position where I am a murderer. But that's just me I suppose... I think the # is 20 deserter out of a few hundred thousand who have served in Iraq and afghan. So there really aren't "many" deserters at all. So basically, what the hell are you talking about? Basically, I am talking about the choice some soldiers have made to desert - they did so because they did not want to be a part of the administrations murderous campaign for economics. I've had discussions with soldiers before - they defend every atrocity commited by the military, saying it was caused by stress or that they were following orders. Reminds me of good cops who don't report the abuses comitted by their fellow officers. Bravo to the 20 who decided they would not let the government turn them into killers...because by now everyone knows they aren't liberating anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killjoy Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Personally, I would rather desert than be forced to be put in a position where I am a murderer. Yeah but in all fairness you 'personally' probably would never join the forces in the first place right? So it's not really a fair analogy. Canada provided amnesty for persons who were facing the draft. That's all. Our regard for the conflict in question is inconsequential....unless you want the US to start allowing our scumbag bikers to hide down there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddman Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 I don't understand - are you comparing scumbag bikers to army deserters? And if so, what do they have in common (other than the tired argument that they both break the law, because clearly a biker is much more dangerous than a deserter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 War is an ugly necessity and it will be for a long time to come. And Halliburton thanks you for your comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Bravo to the 20 who decided they would not let the government turn them into killers...because by now everyone knows they aren't liberating anything. No, sorry, I don't know that. I murderous tyrant has been removed from power and the Arab world's first democracy has taken his place. These are both facts, not opinions or spin. So let's get something clear: do you support people who desert for reasons of concience in general or only for reasons of concience that you find personably agreeable? Because if you're advocating a general principle, it must be that individuals should be able to choose whether or not they want to fight in any particular war regardless of the commitments they've made or their responsibility to the common good. Which makes raising an army a bit tricky. Which makes winning any particular war a bit tricky. If our forefathers had shared your view I'd be typing this in German, or Russian. And if you aren't advocating a general principle, then you're just advocating these soldiers' spineless refusal to uphold their oaths as a means of justifying your own skewed take on this war, or more accurately on this American president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 War is an ugly necessity and it will be for a long time to come. And Halliburton thanks you for your comments. Oh newbie, whatever will you do to make jokes after November 2008? I suppose Haliburton will still be there, but by then the hardee-har-har factor will have dwindled to practically nil, especially if Wesley Crusher or whoever is in the Whitehouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killjoy Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I don't understand - are you comparing scumbag bikers to army deserters? And if so, what do they have in common Do you know what a extradition treaty is and the basics of its' mechanics? Do you know what amnesty is? Please go look it up because I'm not going to explain it to you without charging $68/hour, and it's important to understand what you're talking about. Once you do look it up you will understand why we offer amnesty and will not extradite those who come here to escape the draft, but will deport those who desert. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I am not a fan of the way this war is being fought and how it was planned, but I think that when someone joins a volunteer army, he or she has to expect that the army might come calling some day. I have almost no sympathy for deserters who are trying to get out of their half of the enlistment bargain in Iraq or Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddman Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Bravo to the 20 who decided they would not let the government turn them into killers...because by now everyone knows they aren't liberating anything. No, sorry, I don't know that. I murderous tyrant has been removed from power and the Arab world's first democracy has taken his place. These are both facts, not opinions or spin. So let's get something clear: do you support people who desert for reasons of concience in general or only for reasons of concience that you find personably agreeable? Because if you're advocating a general principle, it must be that individuals should be able to choose whether or not they want to fight in any particular war regardless of the commitments they've made or their responsibility to the common good. Which makes raising an army a bit tricky. Which makes winning any particular war a bit tricky. If our forefathers had shared your view I'd be typing this in German, or Russian. And if you aren't advocating a general principle, then you're just advocating these soldiers' spineless refusal to uphold their oaths as a means of justifying your own skewed take on this war, or more accurately on this American president. I advocate the will it takes to be able to say "This war is wrong as was based on lies." More people die in Iraq since the removal of Saddam. No, I don't think he was a good man, eveil even. But don't kid yourself - Iraq is a much worse place today and your chances of getting killed there has increased since the illegal invasion. No offence, but your forefathers were slave traders, so I don't really care what language you speak. I love Americans, by the way. Even the blind ones who follow an idiot like George Bush. But the military history of your country is disgusting. One would think that today we live in a world where that kind of military machine would slow down for the sake of peace but to no avail. And when i hear people talk about skewed views I wonder what they mean. If you are saying that I am not only against the war, but unwilling to forget how it started then sure, call my view skewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killjoy Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 But the military history of your country is disgusting. Compared to whom? Anyone right now could Google a fine list of nations the US has either covertly or overtly entangled themselves with, especially during the Cold War, but few think to make the same list about the Soviets and the KGB to make a comparison. When you do you realize that the US wasn't really doing anything they weren’t. When the Soviets were screwing around in South America so were the Americans. No, I probably can't link you to 'proof' that the Soviets or Chinese were involved in the very same places, playing the very same dirty games as the US during the Cold War years, but that lack of information suggests something all on its' own: That we hear a lot about the dirty deeds of the US during these times but next to nothing about the Soviets....most people thought it was all lies. After the Wall came down and ever since we learn that indeed the Cold War was a tango that involved two or more, but all we ever hear about is the US. Incompetence is the sole sin of leadership. Yes Bush 'lied' about the reasons to go into Iraq. Well, he didn't so much lie as rely on the worst thinnest reason of all. Before 9/11 there were plenty of reasons to dispose of Saddam, and I feel sure that if the US banged the drum long enough on the issue the 'Coalition of the Willing' would've been MUCH larger, U.N. approval or not. Saddam was cheating over and over again and crossing the line when it comes to the cease-fire agreement made in '91, ('92?). It had to be done. He was siphoning money from the Food-for-Oil for himself, which is no different than the behavior that got him into this mess in the first place when he 'nationalized' (harde-har-har) the nation’s oil. Nationalize is supposed to mean for the people but of course that's not where it was going to. That put him on the shit list long ago. So there were plenty of reasons to rid Saddam before 9/11. Unfortunately 9/11 comes along and in order to gain support at home for an invasion of Iraq any president would've had to tie it in with a war against terror or against whoever caused that attack. And so we have the WMD rationale. There were most definitely WMD of some amount, and to the American people that sounded like a fine reason - dirty bombs and all. Unfortunately/fortunately the rest of the world found it hard to get behind this reasoning. The trumped up molehill-into-a-mountain rhetoric was just too easy to dismiss, and yet there was so much of it that it eclipsed all the good reasons to go in there. Based on the particulars of what they were calling a threat, why not just invade the closest university/college chem. lab? There were good reasons to dispose Saddam, but WMD was probably the worst one. To the American people however a link to terrorism or the threat of those WMD falling into the hands of people who would want to use them in terror attacks was the only reason worth listening to. Much of the USA's usual allies however didn’t 'get it', and it was reasonable that they shouldn't. So here we have the invasion and really things were going ok, or better than could be expected (Cheney and Rumsfelds' over-optimistic predictions not withstanding), until Abu Garib. That was the biggest mistake they could've made and one could make the argument that Iraq was 'lost' from that point on. It was a stupid thing to do and if you were going to do it well shit, you had bloody-well not get caught at it (although I don't see how that truth would not have 'outed' sooner or later). So yeah, there was a 'lie', but that's hardly out of the ordinary for any nation....in fact it's pretty much a necessity in a lot of cases, but it was the incompetence in Iraq that cost both the Americans and the Iraqis. The only sin of leadership is incompetence. Deception on the other hand is a requirement. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I advocate the will it takes to be able to say "This war is wrong as was based on lies."More people die in Iraq since the removal of Saddam. No, I don't think he was a good man, eveil even. But don't kid yourself - Iraq is a much worse place today and your chances of getting killed there has increased since the illegal invasion. No offence, but your forefathers were slave traders, so I don't really care what language you speak. I love Americans, by the way. Even the blind ones who follow an idiot like George Bush. But the military history of your country is disgusting. One would think that today we live in a world where that kind of military machine would slow down for the sake of peace but to no avail. And when i hear people talk about skewed views I wonder what they mean. If you are saying that I am not only against the war, but unwilling to forget how it started then sure, call my view skewed. Your ignorance is astonishing. If I agreed with you I'd be embarrassed to have you defending my position. Every post I make indicates my identity in the lefthand margin. That information quite clearly includes that fact that I'm posting from SOUTHERN ONTARIO. I'm a Canadian, as were my parents, and their parents, and their parents, going back at least five generations on each side. Further, no one in the industrialized West owned slaves during the Second World War. Slavery on the North American continent ended 80 years before then. Saying that the sins of the forefathers of our forefathers sullied the good fight in the 20th century means that no one on Earth can escape from your cheap denigrations, because everyone has skeletons if you go back far enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Saying that the sins of the forefathers of our forefathers sullied the good fight in the 20th century means that no one on Earth can escape from your cheap denigrations, because everyone has skeletons if you go back far enoughThat does seem like an odd way of arguing someone's position on an issue. Actually, replace the word odd with retarded. That's better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 That does seem like an odd way of arguing someone's position on an issue. Actually, replace the word odd with retarded. That's better. I think you aren't understanding his point. If you do understand, then explain what you mean rather than use, if you'll pardon the expression, "retarded" retorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.