Thursday, November 15, 2007
Well it's about time
Just short of three years since US military deserters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey applied for refugee status in Canada to avoid serving in Iraq, the Supreme Court of Canada has finally decided that they do not qualify as refugees. As many as three hundred AWOL American soldiers are believed to be living in Canada, and as a result of this decision, they could all face deportation. My reaction in one word: finally.
This is utterly ridiculous. The people who ran from the Vietnam War draft weren't much better, but at least they hadn't volunteered to fight like these people did. Yes, it is the duty of officers to refuse to follow immoral orders. But an immoral order is something like, I don't know, killing a thousand Sunnis - not attacking a dictator's army. These deserters are cowards, plain and simple. And you'll notice that even though they've been denied refugee status in Canada, they've managed to stay out of the country long enough to avoid the worst of the war.
Anyway, at least they are being sent back, unlike the tens of thousands of Vietnam draft dodgers who were welcomed by Pierre Trudeau, who called Canada a "refuge from militarism". Those draft dodgers, I'm convinced, bear a large portion of the responsibility for the current anti-Americanism in Canada. But thanks to this ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada's common sense score is now above zero for the first time in my life. Not that the same holds true for the opposition parties, all of whom seem to favor allowing the US soldiers to stay. Which is also what a poll cited by MSNBC suggests is the feeling among the majority of Canadian citizens - until you read that the poll was conducted entirely in Ontario. Is it any surprise that the bastion of idiocy which still returns double-digit leads for the notoriously corrupt Liberal Party over the Conservatives would also favor doing something that would disrupt American efforts in Iraq?
This is utterly ridiculous. The people who ran from the Vietnam War draft weren't much better, but at least they hadn't volunteered to fight like these people did. Yes, it is the duty of officers to refuse to follow immoral orders. But an immoral order is something like, I don't know, killing a thousand Sunnis - not attacking a dictator's army. These deserters are cowards, plain and simple. And you'll notice that even though they've been denied refugee status in Canada, they've managed to stay out of the country long enough to avoid the worst of the war.
Anyway, at least they are being sent back, unlike the tens of thousands of Vietnam draft dodgers who were welcomed by Pierre Trudeau, who called Canada a "refuge from militarism". Those draft dodgers, I'm convinced, bear a large portion of the responsibility for the current anti-Americanism in Canada. But thanks to this ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada's common sense score is now above zero for the first time in my life. Not that the same holds true for the opposition parties, all of whom seem to favor allowing the US soldiers to stay. Which is also what a poll cited by MSNBC suggests is the feeling among the majority of Canadian citizens - until you read that the poll was conducted entirely in Ontario. Is it any surprise that the bastion of idiocy which still returns double-digit leads for the notoriously corrupt Liberal Party over the Conservatives would also favor doing something that would disrupt American efforts in Iraq?
Comments:
<< Home
Mommy, Mommy, I didnt join the Military to kill any one, I joined for the free Medical, Schools & good pay Free housing. Cowards!!!!!!!
# posted by 
: 15/11/07 17:27
: 15/11/07 17:27
I think "cowards" is a little strong. We've never been shot at; I have to think it's pretty life-changing.
Personally, I don't think that you should get away with deserting, if you volunteered. But, I can't blame these guys totally either. The recruiters are two-faced liars, and I don't care if they protect us, it's true all the same. The deserters probably didn't get what they expected.
That being said, they shouldhave known better, if they had any brains at all, and that's why I don't feel that sorry for them getting arrested.
Bottom line: I fall in the middle again.
Personally, I don't think that you should get away with deserting, if you volunteered. But, I can't blame these guys totally either. The recruiters are two-faced liars, and I don't care if they protect us, it's true all the same. The deserters probably didn't get what they expected.
That being said, they shouldhave known better, if they had any brains at all, and that's why I don't feel that sorry for them getting arrested.
Bottom line: I fall in the middle again.
I disagree with Robert M. Strongly! Anyone with even half of a brain would know that Army or "Military" means you are signing up to go to war if called upon. Neither can it be honestly said that all recruiters are two-faced liars. My husband joined the Army at 18 and spent 20 years in it. He fought in Vietnam. He knew when he signed up that he might be called on and he never thought of his recruiter as a two-faced liar. He went when he was called and did what he promised to do when he signed up. Everyone knows the Military is for the purpose of defending this country! I defend your definition of "two-faced cowards" JB, because that's exactly what they are, and thank goodness they are going to get what they deserve. All they wanted was the benefits!
Having said that, I'm glad they ran away though. What real soldier wants to stand back to back with some chicken-sh*t like that?
Having said that, I'm glad they ran away though. What real soldier wants to stand back to back with some chicken-sh*t like that?
"Neither can it be honestly said that all recruiters are two-faced liars."
So how many recruiters tell you have the probability of getting shot or maimed? Maybe the ones that called me just forgot to mention it or something. They've all made the Army into some grand adventure. Which is hardly the truth.
So how many recruiters tell you have the probability of getting shot or maimed? Maybe the ones that called me just forgot to mention it or something. They've all made the Army into some grand adventure. Which is hardly the truth.
Any idiot knows that you can get shot at if you volunteer to serve in the military. Unless you're John Kerry and believe that only morons join the armed forces, the fact that recruiters don't go out of their way to mention that shouldn't make a whole lot of difference.
All I know is that I had one of those people call me, try to talk me up about school, until I asked if he was a recruiter, then get pissed off when I said I wasn't interested. They're not nice people, and they're full of crap about how "fun" the military would be. One even tried to recruit me based on the fact that I was getting my CO2 tanks filled. Kind of assuming, don't you think?
They have a job to do, and they don't care how they get kids into their organization. And they get pissed off and act like you're a traitor if you're not into it.
They have a job to do, and they don't care how they get kids into their organization. And they get pissed off and act like you're a traitor if you're not into it.
I think you're full of crap. I'd go AWOL if I was being forced into fighting and taking part in an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation.
Anyone fighting over there now are the traitors and cowards... too cowardly to stand up to the government and say 'No - this is wrong'!
Anyone fighting over there now are the traitors and cowards... too cowardly to stand up to the government and say 'No - this is wrong'!
Your assessment of my character wounds me deeply. Really. I'm going to go stick my head in a bucket now.
Sarcasm aside, I have no interest whatsoever in the ramblings of another moron who thinks the invasion of Iraq was "illegal". You'll notice no one has ever actually produced the so-called "law" that forbids ousting a despot. Oh, and by the way, the legitimate, democratically elected government of Iraq (which exists thanks to the Coalition, I might add) has asked for continued help from the US and its allies.
As for soldiers being "traitors and cowards", yeah, that makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. "Traitors" because they're following orders and "cowards" because they're getting shot at protecting the freedom of the Iraqi people.
Sarcasm aside, I have no interest whatsoever in the ramblings of another moron who thinks the invasion of Iraq was "illegal". You'll notice no one has ever actually produced the so-called "law" that forbids ousting a despot. Oh, and by the way, the legitimate, democratically elected government of Iraq (which exists thanks to the Coalition, I might add) has asked for continued help from the US and its allies.
As for soldiers being "traitors and cowards", yeah, that makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. "Traitors" because they're following orders and "cowards" because they're getting shot at protecting the freedom of the Iraqi people.
No intent to 'wound your charactor, but the 'pre-emptive'
invasion of Iraq falls under certain areas of International Law.
For example, Richard Perle, the leading proponent of the invasion,
admits violation of IL here http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html ..or google 'iraq invasion international law' and find 1,460,000 sites which discuss it.
It was one of several reasons I opposed the invasion and wrote a number of letters at the time to my congressman (who ignored them, of course). On the other hand, having been a soldier once, I understand that you follow orders, do your best and become a hero or a corpse (neither is called a coward) I would have. The mouths and lips say you cannot support the troops unless you support the president. B......t Twenty seven US generals have come out against it. But, back on subject, I agree that AWOL/deserter types are acting criminally, whether philosophical thinkers or physical cowards...and Canada is correct in with holding political asylum status.
invasion of Iraq falls under certain areas of International Law.
For example, Richard Perle, the leading proponent of the invasion,
admits violation of IL here http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html ..or google 'iraq invasion international law' and find 1,460,000 sites which discuss it.
It was one of several reasons I opposed the invasion and wrote a number of letters at the time to my congressman (who ignored them, of course). On the other hand, having been a soldier once, I understand that you follow orders, do your best and become a hero or a corpse (neither is called a coward) I would have. The mouths and lips say you cannot support the troops unless you support the president. B......t Twenty seven US generals have come out against it. But, back on subject, I agree that AWOL/deserter types are acting criminally, whether philosophical thinkers or physical cowards...and Canada is correct in with holding political asylum status.
I never have understood how volunteers in an all volunteer military ran. Well your first commenter told it like it was.
Robert....you've "met" one recruiter...most I met were great...they pretty much told it like it was with an emphasis on the good points... which is what a recruiter is hired to do.
Ryan...Moonbat, please find a large group of Marines just stepping out of a bar from an evening of libations and call them traitors and cowards. Please.
Robert....you've "met" one recruiter...most I met were great...they pretty much told it like it was with an emphasis on the good points... which is what a recruiter is hired to do.
Ryan...Moonbat, please find a large group of Marines just stepping out of a bar from an evening of libations and call them traitors and cowards. Please.
BB: the assessment of my character that I was referring to was contained within Ryan's statement "I think you're full of crap". Anyone who starts a post off with that doesn't get respect from me. However, as usual, your input was well-reasoned and deserving of an equally reasoned response.
My argument is this: since the UN and other supranational organizations are controlled primarily by dictatorships, they have no moral authority to create binding laws; in Locke's terms, there is no "consent of the governed". This is the critical feature of laws to a libertarian; any law created without the consent of the governed, either expressed through referendum or inferred through representation, is not a valid law. Therefore, "international law" cannot claim the right to control the actions of individuals or nations - at least, not until it is democratic countries, and ONLY democratic countries, writing these so-called laws.
When I say that no law prevents the ousting of a tyrant, I am referring to laws of the nations which attacked Iraq. If it were law in the United States (as it is in Costa Rica, for example) that the military is to be used solely for defense, then the invasion of Iraq would have been against real laws. This is not the case, however, and the only "laws" that were broken had no right to exist in the first place.
My argument is this: since the UN and other supranational organizations are controlled primarily by dictatorships, they have no moral authority to create binding laws; in Locke's terms, there is no "consent of the governed". This is the critical feature of laws to a libertarian; any law created without the consent of the governed, either expressed through referendum or inferred through representation, is not a valid law. Therefore, "international law" cannot claim the right to control the actions of individuals or nations - at least, not until it is democratic countries, and ONLY democratic countries, writing these so-called laws.
When I say that no law prevents the ousting of a tyrant, I am referring to laws of the nations which attacked Iraq. If it were law in the United States (as it is in Costa Rica, for example) that the military is to be used solely for defense, then the invasion of Iraq would have been against real laws. This is not the case, however, and the only "laws" that were broken had no right to exist in the first place.
Jenn,
regarding:
you've "met" one recruiter...
Actually I've met three.
JB,
You claimed: ...the only "laws" that were broken had no right to exist in the first place."
Even though I disagree with you about the war, I deeply admire that sentiment. If we applied that principle to all laws, we have a better country I think.
Post a Comment
regarding:
you've "met" one recruiter...
Actually I've met three.
JB,
You claimed: ...the only "laws" that were broken had no right to exist in the first place."
Even though I disagree with you about the war, I deeply admire that sentiment. If we applied that principle to all laws, we have a better country I think.
<< Home
subscribe
