[Mot]

Imagine joining the US air force in WW2 as a bomber pilot and then refusing to fly any missions because you consider random killing of civilians as immoral. Thw war would have never been won.

Some will respond to this with some more Anti Americanism (for the record I left the US for a better life here) with spell check and grammar policing while making their own spelling errors (hypocricy rather than hypocrisy) using words in the wrong context (an & and) and writing with excessive commas. That's called diversion, the same thing the Bush Admin is doing in Iraq. Knowing people's motives is always a good thing.

Trying to explain grey to black and white thinkers is impossible.
Comparing Iraq (illegal and unjustified militarism), to WWII (legal, and justified war) is the work of a black and white mind.

What does victory in Iraq look like? No one knows

What is the goal in Iraq? No one knows

What does the enemy look like in Iraq? No one knows

What country is the enemy we are fighting in Iraq? No one knows

Did Iraq ever attack the USA or declare war upon it? No

All of these questions are easily answered in terms of WWII and allied actions in the war.

Iraq is an idiotic diversion from the actual people who attacked the US on 9/11. The terrorists were not in Iraq prior to this war and black and white thinkers lead one to believe that just because Iraq is filled with brown people it is a justified action upon a civilian population who neither declared war nor attacked anyone. There are immoral actions being reported against the Geneva Conventions by soldiers who serve in Iraq. The brave men and women who deserted will not blindly follow bad leadership and they are heros for refusing to be used by the US government to subjugate brown people for no warranted reason.

There is a reason Canada never joined this folly in Iraq because it is not a justified military action.

Black and white thinkers say,"well they signed up so they must follow orders and pay the price" The rest of us realize that argument is way too simple to work in the real world and cannot be applied to real life circumstances especially when it comes to war.

No one should be forced to give up their life in a meaningless war simply because they enlisted. No one should face prison because they refuse to participate in military action that is based on lies, deception and corporate greed.

We had a great turn out for the War Resisters Rally yesterday. This war will end when soldiers refuse to participate in it.

 

[digi]

Did Iraq ever attack the USA or declare war upon it? No

You're complaining to the wrong country.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Iraq invaded one of the USA's allies (ally of convenience, but nonetheless...) in 1991, and after being tossed out of Kuwait continued to thumb his nose at the USA. He could have turned from a bad guy into a US "okay" guy like Quadaffi in Libya, but no....Saddam had to be all bravado. Regardless of what you feel about the war, you have to think that Saddam was just asking for an ass kissing. It doesn't matter if Iraq attacked or declared war on the US, all that mattered was that the US wanted to act. As such, the 21st century should count itself lucky that it is the US that is the dominant global military power, since they are by far the most benevolent global hyperpower the world has seen. Imagine if Hitler, Stalin or Napoleon had had the power wielded by the US today, the world would be under their foot pretty darn quick. So, don't misunderstand me, I am not defended the US or its military as being moral or just.

I was against the US and allied war(s) in Iraq from the start, both in 1991 and now. Not because it's immoral, but because these are pointless waste of Western and US finances, resources and lives. I couldn't care less if Arabs from Iraq or wherever kill Arabs from Kuwait or wherever, as they've done since they were nothing but nomads, as long as they keep the oil flowing. If it wasn't for oil, no one in the US government would give a crap about the Arabs. If the US had been smart pre-Suez War, they could have supported the British hold on the colonies in Nigeria, Kuwait, Aden (Yemen), etc, and kept the oil under BP. As it is with the Saudi's using the west's oil payments to fund the 9/11 terrorists and pushing their militant Jihadist version of Islam into previously moderate mosques throughout Europe, Asia and the USA, the sooner the US and the west cut off their financial ties with the Arabs the better.

 

[ganjavih]

Another classic Beez post.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Another classic Beez post.

Thanks.

 

[Mot]

While we are in agreement regarding the uselessness of the war and the waste in human lives and treasure. I want to comment on referring to the US as a benevolent power. The argument that others with the same amount of power would have abused it further is not valid. It does not negate the issue that the US is abusing it's power at the cost of countless victims and bounty. I don't think an Iraqi civilian is feeling happy the US is the invader rather than Napolean or Hitler, their loss is still the same.

On to the addiction to oil. Jimmy Carter for all the abuse he received as President was way before his time in trying to free Americans and the world from Arab oil. In fact Ronald Reagan removed the solar panels off the roof of the White House that Carter installed. The Conservatives in the US (both Republican and Democrat) are the reason the country never moved forward with alternative energies.

A former war resister, James Burmeister, who came to Canada then went back to the US, is now in prison. Below is a description of what he encountered in Iraq. I don't think a man who refuses to participate in such actions should be in prison, I believe he should be welcomed here in Canada which has been historically a haven against militarism. Perhaps Canada isn't what it used to be. I hope not. Time will tell.

http://eugeneweekly.com/2008/05/22/coverstory.html

"In a July 2007 article in The Oregonian, Burmeister said he had participated in a team that placed fake cameras on poles and labeled them U.S. property to give the team the right to shoot anyone who to tried to move or take the equipment.

Burmeister writes in his deposition, "These citizens were almost always unarmed. In some cases the Iraqi victims looked to me like they were children, perhaps teenagers."

He told the same story to Canada's CBC news in June 2007, and allegedly to PBS's NOW, but that statement was not used in the portions of his interview used on air. "

 

[jade_lee]

Canadian spies seemingly working for the US will have to explain their actions soon. The flow of truth is now almost impossible to stop, I hope every person who followed the war mongers blindly is visited by Karma. I salute these brave soldiers from America that have walked away from the madness, hopefully we Canadians don't let these guys down. We have to defeat our own enemy here in Canada, our current minority government. They shame all of us. They are fools. BRING ON THE ELECTION! The 300 million dollar price tag of our federal election this time will be well worth the cash.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We have to defeat our own enemy here in Canada, our current minority government. They shame all of us. They are fools. BRING ON THE ELECTION! The 300 million dollar price tag of our federal election this time will be well worth the cash.

If those opposed to the current minority government thought that had any chance of defeating it they would have forced an election years ago. Stefan Dion is terrified of an election, or should be, as he will not perform nearly well enough to keep his leadership of the Liberals. All PM Harper has to do is keep his minority government again, but Liberals expect Dion to win the majorities that Liberals believe are theirs by default.

The most worrisome thing for Liberals and Dippers is the removal of Bush from the White House in a few months. Without Bush, it will be impossible to keep up the accusations that Harper is just toadying up to the US right wing. This will be especially true if Obama wins, as I can see both Obama and Harper liking each other almost immediately. We must remember that Democrats in the USA are very much like Conservatives in Canada. There is no equivalent to the Liberals or NDP in the USA, as they'd never win. Let's look at their similiarities between Harper and Obama:

1) Both young leaders:
Stephen Joseph Harper PC MP (born April 30, 1959)
Barack Hussein Obama born August 4, 1961)

2) Both well educated (Obama more so, but Harper's MA in econo is not bad, too many politicos are lawyers IMO)

3) Both are actively religious, while remaining neutral or non-committal on abortion. Both said marriage should be between a man and woman, but both have put the issue to bed.
Harper, Christian and Missionary Alliance
Obama, United Church of Christ (UCC)

4) Both have strong activist and aggressive foreign policy positions
Harper, supports Afghan mission extension, publicly supports Israel over Arabs
Obama, watch out Iran and foes of Israel, Obama's speeches to date show this guy's got to prove his mettle

5) Both prefer pragmatic environment policy
Harper, pulled Canada out of Kyoto, refused to sign on to latest talks unless big polluters signed up first
Obama, will not commit to signing onto Kyoto unless big pollutors China, India sign up first, but has spoken of seeking alternative sources of energy

Now, of course Obama is better than Harper in many ways, but my point is that these two guys will likely get along very nicely. If they do, it will be hard for the Canadian Left to accuse Harper of now toadying up to the Democrats. If you read the news in Canada the Left is already becoming worried that Obama isn't an American Jack Layton, and instead is looking at slowing down troop withdrawal from Iraq, challenging Iran and giving strong security guarantees to Israel, while supporting immigration reform to block illegals, and worst of all, he's playing up his religion!!!!! WTF the Left is asking, where is the socialist Obama of our dreams? If this keeps up we'll have the friendliest President/PM relationship since the two Irishmen, Reagan and Mulroney.

 

[Brandon716]

This thread seems to have slipped to the backside recently.

BTW, in the discussion earlier about how many people in the military are there for reasons other than war (particularly economically depressed people who tend to be less educated, more vulnerable to recruiters' stories), I suppose I have a unique view.

I graduated high school in May 2000, and many of my peers that went into service saw the military purely as a vehicle for a career starter, something to get them out of town for a few years without having to pay for it. The mood of people in my high school back when we graduated in 2000 was that we were officially in a "post-war" period where war wouldn't be a necessary tool as it was in the past.

However naive you want to call it, however stupid you want to call it, the fact is that it was true before 9/11 especially.


And it seems that most of the people who got caught up in Iraq were people of my generation, including some people I went to school with and some relatives.

Teenagers of today have the "luxury" of knowing the military is really the military, and not some career starter as its marketed as.

For most the people that signed up in the 20 years prior to 9/11, they thought that post-Vietnam the military was more of a career starter and not something to be stuck with.

Just wanted to make clear a lot of facts beyond the rhetoric. Even people who signed up after 9/11 were fed lines of b.s. about "you won't be in combat roles" when all they wanted was a signature on a piece of paper.

When someone makes the mistake of signing that sheet of paper, they sign their lives over to the US government and suspend their civilian rights.

After that, its up to the government to make the right choices on their behalf.

The US goverment failed to make the right choices, so that's why its essential a nation like Canada take resisters and support the cause in my view. These people have no choice, all because of a stupid signature to lease their lives to the military and suspend their rights.

 

[kEiThZ]

As a serving member of the Canadian Forces I can offer some perspective on this....

If there was a draft on, deserting to Canada might be justified.

If they were asked to do something illegal and they faced repercussions for such a decision, desertion might be justifiable.

However, those of us who serve do not have the luxury of politics. Not agreeing with a conflict is not a sufficient basis for avoiding service in a combat zone. Politicians decide on the country's interests and we are there to implement their decisions. Even if the Iraq war was illegal (UN resolutions say otherwise and defining "illegal" is a challenge given that international law is pretty unevenly applied), the responsibility would fall on the political leadership, the armed forces would still be bound by law to implement the decisions of the executive branch of government. This is no different in Canada and a CF member who refused a deployment order to Afghanistan would face the same treatment. As the famous line goes, " we are here to defend democracy, not practice it"...

As for the hogwash of saying he was forced to commit human rights abuses....I'd like to see where his Rules of Engagement (ROE) said he could randomly kill civilians or that he should molest children. Raiding civilian homes in the middle of war is not a human rights violation, no more than than the RCMP doing it, while trying to nab a drug dealer. If he was an unwilling participant in the Abu Gharib affair, maybe he could qualify for refugee status....and that's pushing it because many of those infamous characters are facing courts-martial (and rightly so...) back home for their abuse of detainees under their charge.

There's no doubt that the Iraq war is not a popular one, and strategically was probably one of the US' greatest blunders. It left us treading water in Afghanistan. However, its high time activist stopped using shrill rhetoric to criticize the conflict. The US is in Iraq. Pulling out and leaving behind anarchy will help no one, least of all the Iraqi people. A broken Iraq would destabilize the region, strengthen Iran and become a global training centre for every jihadi idealist.

Lastly, every soldier knows, you don't fight for flag or principle, you fight for the guy beside you. He has let every one of his mates down by his selfish behaviour. I wonder how he'll ever look any of his former brothers-in-arms in the face again. If this soldier believes that he is doing the right thing and it wasn't done out of cowardice...let him offer to serve in Afghanistan, serve in a non-combat role or do the right thing and face his time in prison. Canada should not be coddling cowards. The refugee policy should remain reserved for people who truly need refuge from conflict not for people who need refuge from their poor choices. I thought the National Guard filled sandbags....gimme a break....

 

[Mot]

Here we go again with yet another person with an ounce worth of knowledge about the actions of the American Army and the terrorism they are performing on the citizens of Iraq. A nation that did nothing to the US. Please read "The Deserter's Tale" by Josh Key to understand what is really going on there.

 

[Dichotomy]

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.

 

[Brandon716]

keith, I have no idea how the environment is like in a Canadian high school and how young people are recruited for service in Canada as I grew up in the United States, so I'm all ears as to how Canada recruits members of the Canadian Forces.

That's a question I'm sure any Canadian born citizen can answer, but on the other issue we'll just have to agree to disagree.

US military recruiters have a business plan, and their plan is to target youth who are uneducated, vulnerable, and come from very poor backgrounds with promises that cannot be kept. The most common approach from recruiters in the US is that its a business decision. They commonly talk about how you'll "never see combat" if you sign up "with us" because they always have a story they can just make up.

Someone who is a teenager from an underpriviledged familiy who simply doesn't understand, and doesn't have the financial resources to sustain themselves after they get out of high school will make the decision without any regards to war, military beliefs, public social beliefs, or and connection to the reality of what the military is.

There's also another side of the coin, sometimes there are people who signed up feeling they would go to afghanistan or perform relief assistance roles, yet they are put into combat roles against people they don't want to fight. Is there not a right for these people to legally protest such events?

I'll go as far as believing that people who sign up to protest should be allowed refugee status, because there is a political point to be made.

There's many reasons behind people fleeing military action, and I happen to be someone who isn't highly nationalistic, and someone who believes that if my military is doing something gravely wrong it should be protested against from within or from the outside.

No one is a coward for protesting and refusing to serve against something, especially if they have already served and seen first hand what their nation is doing.

On the contrary, these people are speaking out and risking being put in jail. That's the last thing a coward does. Cowards don't speak up and they just take orders even if they know its wrong.

 

[kEiThZ]

Brandon

I will detail some personal experiences and interactions here:

When I joined I had my terms of service placed in front of me and was told I should only sign if and only if I was willing to:

1) Die in the service of Canada
2) Kill in the service of Canada
3) Order and send others to their death in the service of Canada (particularly important for officer enrollees)

This was the year 2000. I can't imagine the pitch being all that different now. If anything, its probably more poignant now. While there certainly is a lot of effort to sell the military....and the military is no different than any other organization trying to recruit people, at the end of the day I was fully informed about what I was signing.

I routinely interact with both enlisted and officer personnel from many NATO countries and I work with a USN and a USAF exchange officer at work. My USN colleage, a Naval Academy grad was actually was stop lossed post 9/11. So yes MOT, I do know what I am talking about. Her recruiting experience was very similar to mine. The USAF guy, a young guy, my age, ditto.

I would argue its not the innocence of youth that's the issue, its their ignorance, sometimes willful. They are adults when they join, and I assure you they are told what they are signing (and they should be reading everything over twice). Now, if they feel justified signing up for a risky gig simply because there is a college fund at the end I would argue that they either lack common sense or maturity. But ultimately, at 18, the law says that they are not misguided youth, but adults capable of entering legally binding contracts with the ultimate of repercussions.

Yet even after that, all the training courses and routine unit training is meant to re-inforce the fact that you will be participating in operations where life and limb are at risk. If by the end of basic training, these individuals still believed that they would only be filling sandbags, I think their mental capacity should be suspected.

I would strongly disagree with anyone serving in the armed forces for access to college funds or health benefits. Now given that this is the issue that faces potential enlistees in the United States, is this Canada's business to attend to? First off, I would say that if the situation were reversed most Canadians would rightly be pissed that the US was harbouring deserters, particularly given that we are a democracy with an established rule of law and competent courts that could handle such cases. The reverse applies to the case at hand. Next, if it is the case that there is a "socio-economic draft" and there is an argument to be made for that, then it is US citizens who should be campaigning for change and bearing the burden of the fight not Canadians. Why should the Canadian taxpayer shelter a deserter to combat a perceived US flaw? Moreover, when the diplomatic (damaged relations) and legal (loss of reciprocity) risks to Canada are significant, should we persist in purposely interfering in the business of our best ally and one of her own citizens?

Ask any service member, including ones with reservations about the current conflict and they will tell you that they think these deserters are cowards. They abandoned their brothers in the middle of a fight. And I mean that in every literal sense of the word. What happens to an infantry section if it loses a trained medic or a trained machine gunner right before deployment? Or an air crew thats down a pilot or navigator? Is it fair to the rest of your mates that you all of a sudden don't feel up to the task. At the end of the day, we fight to bring our buddies home. That is something, only those who have served will understand. It is for that exact reason that the punishment for desertion or cowardice is severe and that the principle behind the punishment is widely supported throughout the armed forces (regardless of country).

Like I have said, if they were asked to commit atrocities or there was a draft on, or they were shooting deserters, there is a case to be made....though some would argue that draft dodging is unpatriotic, I am sympathetic to them. But this is not the case for the deserters who are applying for refugee status. None of them have presented any evidence that they were asked to do anything that was illegal. And note that if they were asked, they would have the legal and moral obligation to refuse an unlawful order and report it to a higher authority. None of them have presented affidavits or records of protests challenging command decisions or ROEs that were handed to them. They simply up and walked away. If they believe that this war is wrong, is that the correct and patriotic way to do things? To abandon your comrades? Run away to another country? Why not take the prison sentence, and campaign against the war? Why not hold 60's style sit-in's? Million man marches? I guess sitting at Tim Horton's with a couple of Toronto Star reporters is way easier. All while, your buddies slug it out half a world away....

Lastly, if they wish to stay in Canada I would support them pursuing legal residency, under processes other then the refugee program. They do not fit the definition of a convention refugee and to grant them status as refugees would undermine the program and demean the value of true refugees.

As for the political parties that do support it....how many here would want to bet that the Liberals would have voted against the motion if they were in power.....its a lot easier to play politics when you don't have to govern....

 

[kEiThZ]

Here we go again with yet another person with an ounce worth of knowledge about the actions of the American Army and the terrorism they are performing on the citizens of Iraq. A nation that did nothing to the US. Please read "The Deserter's Tale" by Josh Key to understand what is really going on there.

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.....