[kEiThZ]

You guys certainly dodged a bullet Hydrogen. Had Harper been elected two years earlier Canada would very likely be fighting in Iraq,

Agreed...and then the Conservatives would have been relegated to the opposition benches for another decade.

But what about Canada effectively having the third most personnel in Iraq through our exchange postings, and that not being acknowledged in Parliament at all? Seems the Liberals had no problems with sending Canadians to Iraq, they just didn't want to tell the public about it.

and now Harper is defying the will of Parliament in the case of these men and women. This is the point you continue to miss.

I have already said that if Parliament really meant it, they would have made it a confidence vote. I don't appreciate, them politicking with the lives of these men and women any more than you do.

Iraq never had anything to do with securing American freedom and to continue to use that rhetoric is continuing the death and destruction of the war.

Agreed. The Bush administration committed a strategic blunder that will probably take another decade to make right.

Why are so many cons so aghast at soldiers refusing to kill innocent human beings? it's beyond me. I guess if cons signed contracts to kill innocents civilians they would blindly do so.

Are you trying to infer that soldiers are being ordered to randomly kill civilians? I would like to see your evidence on this. Show me the ROEs that given permission to US soldiers in Iraq to kill random civilians.

I assure you no real soldier would ever willingly kill civilians. Yes, abuses do happen. And those are criminal actions that should correctly be prosecuted (court-martialled) to the full extent of the law. But to say that serving men and women would agree to randomly kill civilians is truly a disgusting statement that shows how very little you understand what military service involves. Also...if this is your contention, are we to presume that US deserters are serial killers?

War is difficult. Nobody said it would be easy. And these individuals knew or should have known what they signed up for. They should also have known that they were liable to be sent to any conflict that their government (elected by the people) thought they would be needed to prosecute. To sign up and then walk off and abandon their comrades is truly despicable behaviour.

But what is worse, is that they have not chosen to make a political statement by accepting prison sentences and protesting at home. They have chosen a convenient first-world refuge. When they have not qualified under our laws for refuge, they demand exemptions. And you want us to bump truly deserving refugees who are escaping life threatening conflict to make a political statement by accepting people who want to run from a few years in prison (a consequence of poor choices they made)?

 

[Hydrogen]

You guys certainly dodged a bullet Hydrogen. Had Harper been elected two years earlier Canada would very likely be fighting in Iraq, and now Harper is defying the will of Parliament in the case of these men and women. This is the point you continue to miss.

Harper would have done no such thing while leading a minority government. The American foray into Iraq was unpopular in Canada right from the get-go.

The Conservatives would not have entered into Iraq for exactly the reason mentioned by kEiThZ:

... the Conservatives would have been relegated to the opposition benches for another decade.

It's one thing to engage in political rhetoric while in the opposition benches, it's quite something else to do such things while the government. We didn't dodge a bullet, we had a government that knew better.

 

[Mot]

Keith, I ve suggested people read "The Deserter's Tale" by Joshua Key to explain the harrassament and slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis.

Hydrogen,
Harper said he would have gone into Iraq. I don't think it's wise to keep supporting the man who if in power would have pushed Canada into the quagmire of Iraq. I certainly don't think he has the judgement to run this nation. Yet I see people on this forum seeking to give him a majority. What a menace that will be.

Opposition leader Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.

In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.

"Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive," the Canadian Alliance leader says.

In a segment to be broadcast across the U.S. and in 41 countries Friday night and repeated on the weekend, Harper says Ottawa's position on the war is hypocritical.

"We have a government here that says Saddam Hussein is a war criminal and maintains diplomatic relations with him during the conflict," he said.

"We have a government that says they're not supportive of the conflict but it becomes more and more obvious that we have Canadian soldiers and sailors involved in the conflict."

Harper has led the criticism in recent weeks over Prime Minister Jean Chretien's refusal to back the U.S. in its efforts in Iraq. On Thursday, the House of Commons debated a motion Harper tabled that called on Ottawa to back the U.S. in its war in Iraq and apologize for a slew of anti-American comments made by senior Liberals.

Harper told the House that Canada's position "diminishes only us," and added, "We are lucky to have the Americans as our neighbour, ally and friend.

"They are our biggest asset in this very dangerous world," said the Alliance leader.

Deputy Prime Minister John Manley told the House Canada's "thoughts and prayers" are with the U.S. but said the decision not to go to war is "consistent with decades of Canadian policy."

"It was our hope that by authorizing greater time for inspections that a broader consensus could emerge in the international community that it was necessary for the use of force," Manley said.

"We have stood apart because we believe it is the Security Council of the United Nations that ought to take responsibility for authorizing force."

Despite the fact that Canada isn't participating, Manley says Canada and the U.S. have "remained steadfast allies."

"Canada stands with its friends even if we cannot engage with them in this conflict," he added.

The motion also called on the government to "express its regret and apologize for offensive and inappropriate statements made against the United States of America by certain members of this House."

Such statements included remarks by a trio of Liberals -- including Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal, who last week said U.S. President George Bush had let the world down by "not being a statesman" -- have cast a further shadow on the links between the two neighbours.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049464033397_20?s_name=&no_ads=

 

[Mot]

Mot, why do you post here? Every time you post here on this topic several of us present detailed and thorough replies to your post, which you always throw back at us. It's fine to disagree, but why do you post here if you're not interested in engaging in true discussion?

Rather hysterical coming from the guy who keeps saying he won't post on the subject any longer, yet can't help himself.

 

[urbandreamer]

Hey, don't both of you (Mot and Mr Beez) live in Cabbagetown? Why not get together for a pub night to discuss your differences? I'll be the moderator. Pay per view, is that okay?

 

[kEiThZ]

http://www.ndp.ca/page/2875
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html

Mot. You forget that Paul Martin wanted to send Canadians to Iraq too. The only reason he didn't after he took power was because he had a minority with the NDP holding the balance of power.

And I would argue that the Germans and the French might well have contributed if they didnt have fat oil contracts with the Saddam.

I don't think we should go down the road of debating who did or did not participate and what their reasons were. Countries like people look out for their self-interest. Indeed, their governments are elected to do just that. I don't see any candidates running for election in any country arguing that said country should just give up their foreign power and influence. Most governments work hard to gain that power through intimidation (gunboat diplomacy) and/or cooperation (foreign aid).

In the end to paraphrase Clausewitz, war is just the continuation of politics by other means.

With regards to the deserters, our law is clear. Refuge is reserved for those escaping the risk of significant and/or deadly violence against their person. US deserters categorically do not fit that category. They are facing jail sentences and hardship from a criminal record, not a noose or a firing squad. I would rather give that spot to those who truly fear for their lives.

 

[Mot]

Once again to excuse bad policy decisions of Harper we get "because a liberal did too" as a reason. Sorry that just does not fly. Harper nor Martin are worth their salt if they wanted to blindly go into one of the worst foreign policy disasters of our time.

One thing I know for sure the people on this forum who oppose the deserters have never taken the time to learn from them or even read their stories. To each their own, it's just another reason why I can never trust a Con.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Rather hysterical coming from the guy who keeps saying he won't post on the subject any longer, yet can't help himself.

It's not hysterical, but an actual, honest question.

Mot, I've just gone through every single post of mine on this thread, and not once did I say I wouldn't post on this subject any longer. Where did you get this idea from? In fact, I find this topic very interesting, and worthy of further discussion, and have never said otherwise.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen,
Harper said he would have gone into Iraq. I don't think it's wise to keep supporting the man who if in power would have pushed Canada into the quagmire of Iraq. I certainly don't think he has the judgement to run this nation. Yet I see people on this forum seeking to give him a majority. What a menace that will be.

Mot, why do you assume I support Harper?

You should note that Harper and the Conservatives have not provided military support to Iraq. If that war was unpopular in Canada when it began, it's even more unpopular now. Any government or party that would argue for military activity in Iraq now would face a drubbing at the polls.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I would rather give that spot to those who truly fear for their lives.

And that is the gist of the matter.

 

[Mot]

Mot, why do you assume I support Harper?

You should note that Harper and the Conservatives have not provided military support to Iraq. If that war was unpopular in Canada when it began, it's even more unpopular now. Any government or party that would argue for military activity in Iraq now would face a drubbing at the polls.

I was responding to Keith's post saying Martin wanted to go into Iraq as a defense against bad Harper policy of wanting to engage in the war.

It's interesting in the article I posted what a bubble Harper lives in, he actually thought a majority of Canadians supported going into Iraq. He's was out of touch with reality then and now.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would rather give that spot to those who truly fear for their lives.

And that is the gist of the matter.

Mot, you still haven't justified how these deserters would qualify for refuge under our laws.

What you are advocating for...is that Canada should make a specific exemption for US military deserters that would send a specific political message and setup an adversarial relationship with our best ally and biggest trading partner. This is not in Canada's best interest. Plain and simple. Our government is elected to look after Canada's interests, not those of US military deserters.

 

[Mot]

It's not hysterical, but an actual, honest question.

Mot, I've just gone through every single post of mine on this thread, and not once did I say I wouldn't post on this subject any longer. Where did you get this idea from? In fact, I find this topic very interesting, and worthy of further discussion, and have never said otherwise.

Originally Posted by Observer Walt
Enough already. This thread is going in circles, with the same points being made over and over.

I have to agree with you there.

MOT, let's agree to disagree. I believe the deserters should return, and you believe they should stay.


From way back in June you wrote the above and you continue on the subject over and over and can't just agree to disagree. You are the one keeping this subject alive and I gladly refute you because you prove consistently to not know a thing about what's going on in Iraq. You don't even have the slighest bit of curiosity in reading the stories of these soldiers. It's dangerous to be so right with so little knowledge on the lives of these people. It's been my point all along and I will continue defending these people because I have met them personally and I really get disgusted at your celebration of their deportations. It's why I bring up your religion. Somehow I doubt your Jesus would be proud of the glee you take in the pain of others.

 

[Mot]

Mot, you still haven't justified how these deserters would qualify for refuge under our laws.

What you are advocating for...is that Canada should make a specific exemption for US military deserters that would send a specific political message and setup an adversarial relationship with our best ally and biggest trading partner. This is not in Canada's best interest. Plain and simple. Our government is elected to look after Canada's interests, not those of US military deserters.

Catering to bad Republican policy seems to be the only interest of some Canadians. Which is exactly what you anti war resisters are doing. We've shown how today's war resisters are similar to Vietnam deserters due to stop loss, misuse of the National Guard, denials of Conscientious Objector status, 3, 4 and 5 forced tours of duty, forcing retired soldiers back into service and the dishonest recruitment tactic on the gullible and young.

It's fun to see Conservatives scream about the rule of law only when it's convenient for political agendas.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You are the one keeping this subject alive and I gladly refute you because you prove consistently to not know a thing about what's going on in Iraq.

We're all, including you, keeping this subject alive. And we should, since the story and developing, especially now that one of these deserters has returned to stand by his principals. In the context of these deserters, it doesn't matter if we know what's going on in Iraq, that's not the point, the point is that they are hiding in Canada and should go home.

You don't even have the slighest bit of curiosity in reading the stories of these soldiers.

Bingo.

It's dangerous to be so right with so little knowledge on the lives of these people. It's been my point all along and I will continue defending these people because I have met them personally and I really get disgusted at your celebration of their deportations.

I am not celebrating their deportation, but it does please me that our system is working, and I am proud of Pfc Long for standing up for his beliefs while his comrades hide like cowards across the border.

It's why I bring up your religion.

Go ahead, but as I've already explained, soldiers running from their beliefs is not consistent with Christianity, where soldiers who refuse immoral orders stand and take their punishment. That may sound horrid and brutal, but that's the Christian story. Perhaps you'd be better off choosing another religion, I hear Buddha likes the non-violence, however, if you've seen the monks in Burma standing firm for their beliefs, refusing to run like cowards, while the police and army beat them and shoot them, perhaps you'd better not use any religion at all to bolster your position.