[kEiThZ]

So, let me ask all the armchair critics this: do any of you know any Iraqi expatriates living here? Have you asked THEM what they think of the 'invasion?'

Just wondering, is all.

I don't know about Iraq, but Afghani Canadians strongly support Canadian participation in Afghanistan, and are routinely involved in our training exercises and work-ups....something is always better than 20 years of conflict. Many have volunteered to participate as faux civilians in the work ups in Wainwright and Gagetown. And we work closely with them to gain a better understanding of the culture so as to minimize the impact of operations on the day-to-day lives of Afghans in-theatre.

 

[Dichotomy]

So you read a book, eh? Please tell me how many years of service you have? And how many US military personnel you interact with on a day-to-day basis? Any of them work at the Pentagon in the run-up to OIF? Or maybe you interact with intelligence agencies regularly as part of your day-to-day job and understand how close the decision was (for many of the countries involved...including Canada)?

Yeah I thought so. It's pretty easy to fight with a keyboard.

What make's me sad, is that my service keep you people like you safe at night and gives you the right to vote....I guess democracy has to have some down sides.....

Quoted for truth. We have become fat, lazy and stupid in the West, and our enemies know that. Too many people (me included) who wouldn't know which end of a gun to point, love to tear down the American military and their 'imperialism,' - yet who are the first people the world turns to when there is a hurricane, tsunami or tribal war?

 

[Hipster Duck]

You're right, Americans "sure do one heckuva job" when it comes to disaster relief.

 

[kEiThZ]

You're right, Americans "sure do one heckuva job" when it comes to disaster relief.

Damn sure they do... One American Carrier Battle Group can more provide disaster relief assistance than the entire Canadian Forces. This was proven in the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami. Funny thing about ships, aircraft, amphibious vehicles, trained personnel, etc. You can use them for peace or war.

FEMA on the other hand was a different story....

Then again, when was the last time Canada had a major disaster on par with Katrina. I am not so sure, that given the size of our military that we would be significantly better at providing disaster relief. All those who rail about our defence cooperation agreements are sure going to be grateful when its US forces rescuing them, the next time a big one hits Vancouver. With 6 againg buffalos and a dozen or so Sea Kings, all around 30 years old, for the entire West Coast, its highly unlikely that the CF will be able to do much in that situation....I have always found it funny that all those who campaign against US militarism never understand why we need to have a stronger military to ensure our own sovereignty and independence....

 

[Mot]

So you read a book, eh? Please tell me how many years of service you have? And how many US military personnel you interact with on a day-to-day basis? Any of them work at the Pentagon in the run-up to OIF? Or maybe you interact with intelligence agencies regularly as part of your day-to-day job and understand how close the decision was (for many of the countries involved...including Canada)?

Yeah I thought so. It's pretty easy to fight with a keyboard.

What make's me sad, is that my service keep you people like you safe at night and gives you the right to vote....I guess democracy has to have some down sides.....

First, no one here has any way of verifying if you shot a pea shooter in high school or an AK47 in boot camp. But since you threw it out there I am thinking you are full of it as most pro war conservatives I have dealt with on these forums. Real ex soldiers I know don't throw it out there the way you did.

Second, serving in the military does not make one's observations and opinions more valid than a non military person.

Third, The Iraq war is an illegal war, the US presence there is illegal as an occupying force in a sovereign nation. It is against the military code of conduct and Geneva Conventions to terrorize civilians during conflict. The US army is doing so on a daily basis. Direct terrorism, not collateral.

It is the duty of every soldier to refuse orders against the military code of conduct and Geneva Conventions. That is exactly what these brave soldiers have done. Men like you simply just follow the leader.

 

[digi]

What make's me sad, is that my service keep you people like you safe at night and gives you the right to vote....

What's really sad is that you seem to believe this crap....keep drinking the koolaid, kid.

 

[kEiThZ]

First, no one here has any way of verifying if you shot a pea shooter in high school or an AK47 in boot camp. But since you threw it out there I am thinking you are full of it as most pro war conservatives I have dealt with on these forums. Real ex soldiers I know don't throw it out there the way you did.

Second, serving in the military does not make one's observations and opinions more valid than a non military person.

Third, The Iraq war is an illegal war, the US presence there is illegal as an occupying force in a sovereign nation. It is against the military code of conduct and Geneva Conventions to terrorize civilians during conflict. The US army is doing so on a daily basis. Direct terrorism, not collateral.

It is the duty of every soldier to refuse orders against the military code of conduct and Geneva Conventions. That is exactly what these brave soldiers have done. Men like you simply just follow the leader.

1) With 8 years of service as a military officer in the CF I assure you I have more than pea-shooter experience....I doubt you know any real soldiers....or you would know that most soldiers view war with a much more realistic trepidation than any politician...its something about us having to actually do the grunt work. But soldiers are also principled people who believe in helping others. Every uniformed member I know supports the mission in Afghanistan because we believe that little girls should have the right to an education, that Afghans deserve some semblance of peace and orderly government (probably take a decade or more) and that our sacrifices will ultimately contribute to the security of Canada and the world by reversing the jihadi fantasies of AQ and the Taliban.

2) True, serving or not serving does not make one's opinion more or less valid. However, I would suggest that first hand experience at any task does improve one's insight and allows for a more informed opinion.

3) Glad you brought up the Geneva conventions. Something tons of people bandy about and know very little of. Please tell me what you know about them. Having endured numerous lectures on this issue and having sat through discussions with our JAG guys on various operational planning issues, I'd like to know what it is I a missing in knowledge on this front. In case you dont know, commanders at every level (in Canada, the US and throughout NATO) have JAG lawyers assigned to them to help in the drafting of rules of engagement and target folders to ensure that the burdens of international laws are met. And just so you know Geneva Protocol refers only to the use of Chemical and biological warfare. It is the Hague protocols that provides us with the laws of armed conflict. And nowhere in there are any of the US actions considered terrorizing civilians. Last I heard the US isnt carpet bombing Iraqi cities. Read the protocols. They are very specific on what constitutes a violation. And they only apply in the case of reciprocity or whenever we feel generous as is the case in Afghanistan today. They exist to protect our personnel and our populations....so that the enemy will provide a reasonable standard of care to them if captured in exchanged for knowing that enemy POWs receive the same on our side. And it all only applies when in action against a recognized uniform force or one fighting a proper insurgency. Suicide bombers targetting Afghan civilians in the daily market in Kandahar city arent entitled to such protections.....though we are nice guys and do provide it anyway.

4) Iraq is a mess for the yanks to sort out. Plain and simple. The US is a democracy. They voted in a government that took them to war and rewarded them with a second term because the voters of the land saw that in their interests. Who are we to question the intent of US voters? We have plenty of challenges in Canada. Let's deal with those first.

5) US deserters do not fit the definition of convention refugees. End of story. I see no reason to get involved in an issue between a foreign government and its citizen particularly when said government is an elected one and said citizen has access to impartial courts.

As for accusing me of being a pro-war conservative. Hey fill your boots. Personally, I am a centrist who votes based on the party that I believe has the best platform for issues that are important to me...lately its been the Greens (despite their anti-military stance).

You say real soldiers don't throw it out like I did. Show some of them your posts and be sure to duck real quick.

 

[Mot]

Please refer to me as General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. I've decided if you get to play soldier I get to play general.

If you knew the Geneva Conventions you would know my point regarding articles 15-17.

 

[kEiThZ]

Please refer to me as General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. I've decided if you get to play soldier I get to play general.

If you knew the Geneva Conventions you would know my point regarding articles 15-17.

Fill your boots...though I think your fantasy is really insulting to the real individual....

As for me playing general....sadly I am only a Captain. Does the fact that I am outspoken and articulate, and do not fit your outdated image of a "docile automaton" as a serving member, bother you? But next time you're in Ottawa, I will gladly meet you in my office in uniform and you are welcome to continue this debate there. I'll even bring my unit chief, someone you would probably refer to as "a real soldier". You could discuss all your great posts with him and receive the appropriate response from a real soldier. Heck, if you want, you can meet me and I will give you my s/n so you can ATIP my service records.

As for your challenge of the Geneva conventions....again I trust you are referring to the Hague protocols.....and articles 15 and 17 specifically prohibiting abuse of prisoners of war and requiring the provision of medical services appropriate to their needs. I would challenge you to show me where Canada has failed in this regard in Afghanistan. In fact our medics treat patients strictly on priority of care not nationality. A Taliban POW is entitled to better care if he needs it than the Canadian soldier he might have just shot.

Next I would challenge you to show me where the US has failed in regards to this in Iraq...excluding the notable exceptions that are under courts-martials right now.

Regardless of all this, keep in mind that the Hague and Geneva protocols and the rest of the body of international law are not binding unless both parties agree to them. I haven't really heard of any jihadi groups or insurgent groups in Afghanistan or Iraq agreeing to having their detention facilities inspected by the Red Cross. Please correct me if I am wrong. Unless they agree to follow the same rules, the detaining power has no legal responsibility to reciprocate. A moral argument can be made, however, and you will not find any soldier regardless of nationality that does not support the appropriate treatment of prisoners. This gives us the moral highground and perhaps, the very slim chance that the enemy might reciprocate (though beheadings seems to be more their style).

 

[kEiThZ]

What's really sad is that you seem to believe this crap....keep drinking the koolaid, kid.

If by that, you mean that I should continue to believe that serving Canada is a noble and honourable thing to do, then I most certainly agree with you!

 

[Dichotomy]

One common denominator I see on a lot of blogger sites these days is that the ability to 'google' links seems to hold more sway as legitimate debate than actual experience.
In fact, one's age quickly becomes apparent, whether revealed or not. Those who don't have the experience are quick with the personal attacks and they naively post link after link of supposed 'studies' and fact sheets they've dug up. Although the internet is a great source of information, being able to process that information is sadly lacking.

I shouldn't be surprised, considering schools today are barely teaching students how to read and write any more, and the universities frown on critical thinking.

The US has buggered things up in Iraq, to be sure. However, any Iraqi expatriate I have talked to are angry that Bush Sr. left in the first place. I forget who I saw interviewed who lamented that the Allies spent 3 years planning for the peace in Germany, but Bush allowed his Joint Chiefs 3 months to plan for the peace in Iraq. It wasn't the invasion that was botched, it was the occupation.

 

[kEiThZ]

One common denominator I see on a lot of blogger sites these days is that the ability to 'google' links seems to hold more sway as legitimate debate than actual experience.
In fact, one's age quickly becomes apparent, whether revealed or not. Those who don't have the experience are quick with the personal attacks and they naively post link after link of supposed 'studies' and fact sheets they've dug up. Although the internet is a great source of information, being able to process that information is sadly lacking.

I shouldn't be surprised, considering schools today are barely teaching students how to read and write any more, and the universities frown on critical thinking.

The US has buggered things up in Iraq, to be sure. However, any Iraqi expatriate I have talked to are angry that Bush Sr. left in the first place. I forget who I saw interviewed who lamented that the Allies spent 3 years planning for the peace in Germany, but Bush allowed his Joint Chiefs 3 months to plan for the peace in Iraq. It wasn't the invasion that was botched, it was the occupation.

While I think everyone is in general agreement that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a cock-up....I see a ton of cherry picking that goes on from the peanut gallery. On the one hand, they condemn the war as illegal because there was no UN sanction (funny though that the same standard doesnt apply to others...ie Russia's invasion of Georgia recently), but then they ignore subsequent UNSCRs that specifically authorize the US invasion and impose on the US the legal obligations of an occupying power. In an environment where people cherry-pick their arguments rational debate goes out the window.....

As for the skills of bloggers...well...if they were really credible writers than they wouldn't be bloggers now would they....Mot can spout off all he wants. He doesn't have to defend his ideas and actions to government ministers and military generals. That's the luxury of driving an armchair. For all the complaining about US imperialism, Mot still hasn't explained why we should follow suit and come between a democratically elected government and a private citizen of that state who has access to fair and impartial courts. Is interfering in the domestic affairs of the United States, not imperialism?

Lastly, Cobra II is a great book on how the invasion of Iraq was botched up....it fits perfectly into the stories I have heard from my US counterparts about the level of political interference and pressure that was placed on the military in the US. And how much the operational planning process (the OPP in milspeak) was messed up too. There's a reason government's should listen to grey suit civil servants and old fart generals. The Bush administration learned that the hard way.

 

[Brandon716]

Thanks for your insights. All I want to say in return is that if you think every recruitment officer explicitly spells out to every person they recruit the actual reality of the situation, you're being extremely naive.

I went through an American public high school and went through the required ASVAB tests, I endured the endless calls from every branch of the military, and I had fellow peers who have been through the system. My father is a civil engineer with the state government and my mother had a stable job as an administrative secretary in another division of government. We had the resources and my parents had the common sense to discourage military service and I was able to take courses in college without any scholarship... Most the kids I grew up with don't have even that luxury. In my particular community, over 50% of the time the people I grew up with were enticed with a business deal to help them with college and they were explicitly told they wouldn't end up in combat operations.

Some people who joined the National Guard who were told they would only be required to serve 2 weeks a year for training should a national emergency happen here AT HOME (because National Guard isn't supposed to be sent halfway around the world) have ended up spending over a year in Iraq.

A matter of fact, the reason why New Orleans was a total disaster, in part, was because the governor of Louisiana did not have much of a national guard left to dispatch to New Orleans. Therefore they had to rely 100% on the federal government to take action.

In the United States, it is a governor's responsibility to dispatch national guard in a state of emergency such as Katrina, and Governor Blanco had NO TROOPS left barely to dispatch because so many of them were abroad.

This blunder in Iraq has had DIRE consequences for all Americans, we're paying out the ass for a chosen war that has little to do with national security, and many people who are serving thought they would be doing 2 weeks of training a year and only be used for national emergencies here in the US.

Many of these people aren't even in the military actively speaking, they are in the reserves and the National Guard.

I don't think you really care about that, you're just pro-military. And so be it, we'll agree to disagree. I don't believe in calling names or saying you're not intelligent, I'm sure you've very intelligent.

But we have a major disagreement on how to protest an unjust war.

 

[Brandon716]

If you want to know the true tragedy of New Orleans and Katrina, here is a quote from a news article via the Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/09/11/chronology_of_errors_how_a_disaster_spread/

There were obstacles to amassing that sort of force. Almost 40 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is on active duty in Iraq; this left the governor with only 4,000 members to muster over the weekend, and a total of 5,700 by Monday.

Then usual federal red tape ensued, and neighboring states and even far-away states couldn't send their troops out of state boundaries simply because of governor orders:

Because of legal guidelines, Richardson could not send a single soldier until approval came from Washington, specifically the National Guard Bureau. Washington, meanwhile, could not give such approval without a formal request from Blanco.

This is when Katrina became a Federal Government disaster. As governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson couldn't send his national guard to Louisiana even on his own order... When the Federal Government of the United States didn't approve national guard from other states in participating in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, that's when you started to see CNN and Fox and NBC and CBS and ABC reporting from ground zero at the convention center and the Super Dome in New Orleans for a whole week while troops were no where to be seen to escort anyone to anywhere.

While I don't think the fact we're in Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with this breakdown, its a significant portion.

 

[kEiThZ]

BrandonTO416. While I don’t believe that the US occupation of Iraq is helpful for global security, I still do not wish to see Canada embroiled in the internal politics of the United States. We stayed out of the conflict in Iraq. End of story. We really do not have the right to interfere in the dialog and political machinations of our southern neighbour, any more than they would have a right to interfere up here. This is particularly so on Iraq, given that we are not party to that conflict. My opposition to accepting US deserters is based on this principle and the fact that they do not in any way fall under the definition of convention refugees. Please tell me, when in history have protesters deserved refugee status. Vietnam was an exception because of the draft. And even in that case, Canada risked severely damaging relations with our best neighbour. Apparently, courts in Canada also agree with me.

Laws exist for a reason. We can’t circumvent them whenever we feel its politically convenient to do so. If these deserters feel that they got a raw deal, I am confident that the fair and impartial courts of the US can provide appropriate justice. They are not Canadian citizens, they are not convention refugees, and they have not sought legal permanent residency in Canada. In my opinion, Canada owes them no duty of care.

You can accuse me of being pro-war. That’s your opinion. I want what’s best for Canada…and that’s to keep our nose out of other people’s business.