Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on July 08, 2004, 01:39:40 PM
-
TORONTO - Army private Brandon Hughey got in his silver Mustang around midnight on March 2, rolled past the gates at Fort Hood in Texas, and headed northeast. All he had to guide him was a deepening dread and principled objection to the war in Iraq and a promise of help from a complete stranger he'd found on the Internet. His unit was deploying to the Middle East the next morning and, as Hughey, 18, wrote in a February 29 e-mail to the stranger, an anti-war activist, "I do not want to be a pawn in the government's war for oil, and have told my superiors that I want out of the military. They are not willing to chapter me out and tell me that I have no choice but to pack my bags and get ready to go to Iraq. This has led me to feel hopeless and I have thought about suicide several times."
His heart pounding to the hip-hop beat on his radio, Hughey drove for 17 hours straight, keeping an anxious eye on the speedometer, panicked that he might get pulled over. The activist met him on March 4 in southern Indiana, stashed the Mustang (with Hughey's dog tags in the trunk) in Indianapolis, and took the wheel behind his own car for a 500-mile trip to the bridge at Niagara Falls. He gave Hughey a New York Knicks cap to pull on over his crew cut so the guards at the Canadian border would believe they were on their way to see a Toronto Raptors game.
Hughey did watch New York shut down Toronto in a fourth-quarter comeback that night—but on TV from St. Catharines, Ontario, where a Quaker couple has taken him in. He is the second American soldier who opposes the war to have applied for refugee status in Canada. As the occupation in Iraq drags on, morale among soldiers plummets, and talk of a post-election draft heats up, their cases will determine whether Canada will once again welcome young Americans resisting a questionable war.
The first was Jeremy Hinzman, a private first class with the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, who arrived in Toronto on January 3 with his wife, Nga Nguyen, and their 21-month-old son, Liam. In contrast to Hughey, Hinzman engaged a lengthy process of pleading from within his unit for non-combat duty as a conscientious objector (C.O.). After his request was denied, Hinzman faced orders for Iraq. He and his wife crammed what they could into their Chevy Prizm and headed north, with their son, from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Hinzman, 25, understood what he was risking: if he wins his case, never being able to visit the U.S. again; if he loses, being deported, going directly to jail with a harsh sentence. Desertion during wartime is a capital offense; though the last execution for a runaway soldier was in 1945, Hinzman worries that the penalty could be revived. "The Bush administration has done so many unprecedented things," he notes. Nonetheless, seeking sanctuary in Canada looked better than any alternative. Hinzman reasons, "I thought of refusing orders and turning myself in [as Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia did last month]. But because of how they had handled my C.O. application, I wasn't sure I would get a fair shake. Anyway, I don't feel I should be incarcerated for following my conscience."
To win refugee status, Hinzman and Hughey will have to demonstrate that they are fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in the U.S.—an extremely tough claim. What's more, notes a former member of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board, refugee law specifies that "prosecution is not persecution": Punishment for breaking a law is not grounds for asylum unless the law itself—China's one-child policy, for instance—is deemed a form of persecution.
That is the kind of argument Hinzman and Hughey's attorney, Jeffry House, will make before Canada's immigration board about eight weeks from now. Essentially, House will be putting the war itself on trial by contending that the U.S. wants to send these young men to jail—or worse—for choosing to comply with international law. "Rather than do something unthinkable or horrible as soldiers," House says, "they came to Canada. That's a huge step."
House knows the feeling. As a college student in Madison, Wisconsin, in the late '60s, he concluded that the Vietnam War was wrong and that he would not participate. The day he got his draft notice, he went to Canada.
Canada has a long tradition of providing safe haven for dissenting Americans: Loyalists during the War of Independence, refugees from the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, so-called "skedaddlers" deserting from Civil War battalions, and, most famously, some 60,000 men and women resisting the Vietnam War.
Unless there's a draft, no one expects a flood at the northern border nowadays. But the trickle could certainly swell. According to a U.S. Army survey released last week, 72 percent of soldiers report that morale in their unit is low or very low. Meanwhile, the suicide rate among service members is at an all-time high. From April through December last year, 23 killed themselves while on duty in Iraq or Kuwait; at least seven more did so after their return home.
Thousands are seeking less dire means of escape. Calls to G.I. Rights Hotline, which answers questions from recruits trying to leave the armed forces, shot up to 28,822 in 2003, from 17,267 in 2001. Meanwhile, though the Pentagon will not confirm figures, military attorneys, activists, and the European press have estimated that 600 to 1,700 soldiers have fled to avoid service in Iraq. Most are likely living underground in the U.S.—going AWOL, even for long periods, is a far less serious offense than actually applying for refugee status in another country—which clearly demonstrates the intent to desert. Nonetheless, the peacenik grapevine in Canada began buzzing on Wednesday with news that a female deserter is on her way.
Canada itself has resisted the war in Iraq. Backed by overwhelming public sentiment, its government officially refused to join the "coalition forces." But much has changed in the 35 years since a draft dodger or G.I. could simply present himself at Canada's border and sign up for landed-immigrant status. "In the '60s, we didn't have a refugee determination system," explains the former Immigration and Refugee Board member, Audrey Macklin, a professor of law at the University of Toronto. "The war resisters who came were not required to jump through any hoops. Now we have a rigorous one-by-one approach and more complex and narrow regimes for permitting entry."
Besides, notes law professor John Hagan, who himself went to Alberta to beat the draft and recently wrote Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada, "The door didn't really open until 1969, and that was in the context of very high levels of casualties—far, far higher than are involved in the current situation. The pressure was immense and took a long time. Neither of those variables is operating now."
Even in the Vietnam War era, U.S. policies and public sympathies judged those who had enlisted and then abandoned their posts more harshly than those evading the draft. Indeed, a blanket pardon President Jimmy Carter granted the day he took office in 1977 applied only to draft dodgers, not to deserters. Hinzman and Hughey hear the same criticism today. "My grandpa was against the war and can't stand Bush," Hinzman says, "but he has firm notions of duty. I think it might be a little humiliating for him to see my name in the media."
Still, as House puts it, "No one has to give up basic moral principle because he signed a contract. Even the U.S. military recognizes that people can become conscientious objectors after enlisting."
Brandon Hughey was 17 when an army recruiter called him at his home in dry, hot, and heavily Republican San Angelo, Texas, to invite him to join up. "I wanted to go to college, and they offered me a $5,000 signing bonus," he recalls with a smile that pulls dimples into his boyish cheeks. "That really caught my attention." Hughey's dad, a computer programmer, had to sign the enlistment papers for his underage son. Then, last summer, shortly after his high school graduation, the teenager left west Texas for Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Hughey trained in bayonets, rifles, and hand grenades, and he learned to drive a tank. At the same time, figuring he should know what he was going to war for, he started to give himself an education in affairs of state. "It wasn't until I joined the military that I began to form political views," he says. On the base, Fox News blared everywhere, but Hughey began reading AP and MSNBC stories online. "When I learned that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, I began to doubt things," he says. He brought questions to his officers, but they told him it wasn't his job to do the thinking. He didn't even know that applying for C.O. status was an option. His first one-month leave came, and Hughey had earned enough cash to finance the Mustang.
By the time Hughey reported to Fort Hood in mid December, he had read what international law has to say about wars of aggression and sensed he had made a terrible mistake. As the days ticked by, he dutifully carried out his orders—spraying insecticide on uniforms, packing gear to be shipped to Baghdad—but at night he surfed the Net, feeling increasingly frantic to get out of serving in a war he couldn't believe in. Hughey didn't feel he could turn to his pro-war family. (In fact, he hasn't called them from Canada.)
con'd....
Source (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0414/solomon.php)
-
con'd....
Then he found the stranger: One evening he stumbled on an article that quoted one Carl Rising-Moore calling for a new underground railroad and saying it would be better for suicidal soldiers to desert, as George W. Bush had done, than to take their own lives. He dashed off an e-mail with the subject line "Please help a desperate serviceman."
Carl Rising-Moore, 58, who describes himself as having been "a brainwashed young man" who enlisted during Vietnam and has been a peace activist ever since, says he couldn't help responding to Hughey's plea—even though it's a felony to assist a deserter. With only hours to go before Hughey was to report for baggage drop-off, Rising-Moore made arrangements with the Quakers. When Rose Marie Cipryk and Don Alexander agreed to receive Hughey in their St. Catharines home, it was déjà vu all over again: They had sheltered resisters in the late '60s. "Simplicity is a value for Quakers," says Alexander, "so there's a debate raging in the community over whether the Internet is good or bad. I think it's obvious which side wins in this instance."
Jeremy Hinzman also figured that the army was his most direct route to college. "I guess I made a Faustian bargain," he says, characteristically flashing both a literary reference and a wry smile. He enlisted on January 17, 2001, shortly after his marriage—and many months before Bush decreed a policy of preemptive war.
Hinzman excelled at the drills and enjoyed the camaraderie, but, he says, "I started to question things as it became clear that basic training is all about breaking down the human inhibition against killing." In rifle training, he says, "You start out with targets that are black circles. Then the circles grow shoulders and then the shoulders turn into torsos. Pretty soon they're human beings."
The chanting was worse. One day, during bayonet training, when the instructor would holler, "What makes the grass grow?" Hinzman caught himself joining in the response: "Blood, blood, blood." Aghast, Hinzman asked himself, "What am I doing?"
He was a novice practitioner of Zen, and when he got to Fort Bragg in July 2001, the closest thing he could find "that wasn't too New Age-y" was the Quaker House in Fayetteville. He and Nguyen started attending in January 2002, and felt at home with its philosophy of nonviolence. Over time, Hinzman began preparing an eloquent application for C.O. status. "Although I still have a great desire to eliminate injustice," he wrote, "I have come to the realization that killing will do nothing but perpetuate it. Thus, I cannot in good conscience continue to serve as a combatant in the Army." He submitted it that August.
At the end of October, the army claimed it had never received his application. (It suddenly turned up in the army's files almost a year later.) He submitted it again, just as his unit was being deployed to Afghanistan. While the application was pending, he slogged through eight months of KP duty in Afghanistan—in punishing 14-hour shifts, seven days a week. In a hasty hearing in Kandahar last April, his request was turned down because Hinzman admitted he would fight in self-defense. That month, his unit returned to Fort Bragg, and on December 20, the orders came for Iraq. He knew he would not be accommodated with non-combat duty again, so in January he and his family fled to Toronto, where they were sheltered by Quakers and then moved into an apartment.
While it will be months before their refugee claims are decided—possibly years if there are appeals—Hughey and Hinzman have already been embraced by Canada's anti-war movement. On March 20, they were featured guests at Toronto's "The World Still Says No to War" rally, which brought out some 7,000 students, trade unionists, religious peaceniks, and lefty sectarians despite a relentless cold, thin rain.
Hinzman addressed the crowd. Though he had never given a speech at a demonstration before, he was a high school debater in his hometown of Rapid City, South Dakota, and for as long as he can remember, he has been an avid reader—later, he comments that the rally reminded him of Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power—so he knows how to turn an oratorical phrase. He told the demonstrators, "I could not simply claim that I was merely a victim of the times or that I was just following orders. Had I taken part in the occupation of Iraq, I would have been making myself complicit in a criminal enterprise."
Hughey stood quietly next to him, soaking up everything but the downpour. "I had no idea so many people think this way," he said later. "It's good not to feel so alone."
-
They are disserters. They should have had the balls to stand trial for thier beliefs. They swore and oath to defend the US Constitution. If they feel the war goes against the principles of their Constitution, they have a duty to take it to the Judiciary.
-
Absolutely. They made a decision and took an oath. Now it's time to live with it.
-
I just don't get it: in the US the army service is voluntary so why did those guys went to army at all ?
It would be easier to understand if service would be mandatory like in here.
-
I agree. I can understand why someone would flee the country rather than risk conscription... but a volunteer? Sorry, no sympathy from me.
-
Make em stay in canada for the rest of their lives :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I agree. I can understand why someone would flee the country rather than risk conscription... but a volunteer? Sorry, no sympathy from me.
Ditto.
-
ya get shot for doing that don't you?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Make em stay in canada for the rest of their lives :aok
that's the same fate as me!;)
-
What a whiney piece of chit...
Do you support this kind of behavior xrtoronto?
Hell I knew I recognized these morons...
Judge for yourself...
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0414/solomon.php
and..
(http://www.drivenbyboredom.com/bling/handsomehunkes1.jpg)
-
Poor Canada.
-Sik
-
Don't agree with this at all. You join...you serve.
-
to simplify:::: they don't really think the war is wrong, they just don't want to get shot at.
-
Originally posted by john9001
to simplify:::: they don't really think the war is wrong, they just don't want to get shot at.
:rofl :aok :rofl :aok
Or...
"I joined to get a free college education and medical benefits, and all I get are AK-47's pointed at me! WAAAAAH!"
-
While I believe we should attempt to avoid war by diplomatic or ecomonic means as we did with the USSR, these guys are just deserters. You take an oath, you follow orders, you are a soldier.
-
"Buhbye losers... Oh, and don't come back :D"
I like it.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Do you support this kind of behavior xrtoronto?
If they were fleeing conscription, based on conscientious objection, I would see this in a different light...but that is not the case. No, I don't support this.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
They are disserters. They should have had the balls to stand trial for thier beliefs. They swore and oath to defend the US Constitution. If they feel the war goes against the principles of their Constitution, they have a duty to take it to the Judiciary.
I guess they had some faith in their government that they wouldn't have to go to some Arab state and fight some illegal/immoral war..They should get decorated for showing some balls.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I guess they had some faith in their government that they wouldn't have to go to some Arab state and fight some illegal/immoral war..They should get decorated for showing some balls.
Balls or no balls is irrelavant. What your ordered to do is not up for debate once your orders are recieved from your superiors. These people are cowards hiding behind so called principles. Well, they should have considered their principles before they signed up. Their actions only serve to futher the supposedly low moral (which oh by the way I have yet to encounter), and in reality could contribute to lossed lives once a likely already undermanned unit reaches Iraq. Screw my brothers... it's all about me <<
-
Course if he'd had a wealthy, politically connected father who could have used his clout to land him a cushy state side Guard position, from which he could then disappear from for a year to do some political shilling for a Republican party member, all you firing squad volunteers would think that was ok?
-
Originally posted by Westy
Course if he'd had a wealthy, politically connected father who could have used his clout to land him a cushy state side Guard position, from which he could then disappear from for a year to do some political shilling for a Republican party member, all you firing squad volunteers would think that was ok?
I don't think it okay, but it is a world away from outright desertion.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What a whiney piece of chit...
Do you support this kind of behavior xrtoronto?
Hell I knew I recognized these morons...
Judge for yourself...
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0414/solomon.php
and..
(http://www.drivenbyboredom.com/bling/handsomehunkes1.jpg)
In my neighborhood and especially where I grew up those three dumba** punks would have gotten non-stop beatings.
Back on subject though any member of the US military who deserts their post is not a "refugee" at all. They are a deserter and as such have to face the consequences. Its just a shame that when they (Canada) deport that guy with his family he may not get the death penalty but at the very least his young child will grow up without a father around the house. The other young kid will be lucky to get away with his life. At the very least we will be housing his sorry butt for many, many years until some liberal in Congress pushes for his release and "pardon".
-
well there have always been deserters always will be differance is main stream media try to make heros of them.To bad instead of football he could have watched the towers going down again,then again that would take courage to. I tell u this the reporter was a bald face lier when he said the moral has plummeted our men and women are proud of the things they are accomplishing just dont hear about them from the media.I have heard from u know i wont say who from ... i have heard the boots on the ground will not stand for being treated the way the vietnam vets were when they came home.They said they will not be spit on and called baby killers with out retaliation.I dont really know what to say about that.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
"Buhbye losers... Oh, and don't come back :D"
I like it.
they'll come back when they are about 65, white hair and hunched over driving 25 in a 45 mph zone between Oct and April every year all over west central/south FL..
xrtoronto
you'd give these cowards shelter?
just what is the meaning of the thread?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
xrtoronto
you'd give these cowards shelter?
just what is the meaning of the thread?
my response is 6 posts above this one in response to Grun...
I posted it cuz I saw this on the Toronto news last evening, but saw it in no US papers online....apparently alot of you didn't know about it?
-
I guess they had some faith in their government that they wouldn't have to go to some Arab state and fight some illegal/immoral war..They should get decorated for showing some balls.
What does faith in the Government have to do with anything? The war is technically legal. It was initiated by the CIC with the support of the elected Congress. It may be wrong, the worst mistake we've made in some time, but that is something you protest in the voting booth. You sign on the line you do your time and hope the electorate and your reps have their heads out of their asses.
It's all this "Army of One" crap, like I saw at Taste of Chicago with the dayglow humvee and the photogenic recruiters shooting hoops with the potential meat :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I guess they had some faith in their government that they wouldn't have to go to some Arab state and fight some illegal/immoral war..They should get decorated for showing some balls.
Replacing a brutal dictatorship with democracy is immoral? What planet are you from?
-
Mohammed Ali is a Hero of mine. He got drafted and decided he didnt want to fight a war he didnt beleive for a govt. that said he was seperate but equal. As a result he went to prison and did his time.
These guys are cowards. I certainly dont want to go to Iraq but if I get orders....I go!
Moore played on this particular feeling in his movie saying that poor kids are joining the military than having to fight a war....Kids who sign up for college benefits and no expectation to pick up a rifle and pack are MORONs to the Nth degree.
You do not have the luxury of questioning orders in the Military unless they are blatently immoral (IE shoot that mother and baby were they stand)
These kids have NO BALLS for deserting quite the opposite. If they had BALLS they would have refused orders and stood court martial for their convictions....not run away.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Replacing a brutal dictatorship with democracy is immoral? What planet are you from?
should read FORCED Democracy....
you did go over there and shove it down there throat....
-
Yeah, we did the same in Germany and Japan, to say nothing of Italy. Shame on us!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Replacing a brutal dictatorship with democracy is immoral? What planet are you from?
the illegal invasion of iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of people I think qualifies....oh damn, I forgot about those HUGE stockpiles of "nucular", biological and chemical weapons that threatened us all...boy I feel so much safer now! *sigh*
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Yeah, we did the same in Germany and Japan, to say nothing of Italy. Shame on us!
sorry but now I have to edumacate u wittle boy....
ever hear of the word ALLIES.....yes ALLIES....you now....the other 150 countries that fought in WW2.
-
Idiot let the recruiter do his thinking for him then let the internet do his thinking for him.
Myself. I would go even if I disagreed with it. But I would reserve the right to tell the world I thought it was wrong.(many here hate Kerry for the same type of thing). If my buddies were gearing up I would not be able to not go.
Is he being treasonous? No more then someone who goes awol to avoid an exercise or a course that they dont want to attend. Both things happen. Not everyone is cut out to be in the infantry. That this guy has decided he cant kill for Haliburton doenst make him a lesser man. That he chose to run instead of taking the penalty that he knew when he signed and took uncle sams 5k makes him a criminal.
Just think, when he signed up he wasnt old enough to see ferenhight 9/11 with out his mommy.
The 1000th coalition casualty is happening as we speak. Some here should not cast stones at this fellow. They wouldnt dream of defending thier country or dying for dick chenny.
edit.
the guy should have just said he was gay.
-
Originally posted by SLO
sorry but now I have to edumacate u wittle boy....
ever hear of the word ALLIES.....yes ALLIES....you now....the other 150 countries that fought in WW2.
It's ok to "force something down someone's throat" if you bring 150 friends...ok, got it.
Thanks for the edumacation.
-
Originally posted by VOR
It's ok to "force something down someone's throat" if you bring 150 friends...ok, got it.
Thanks for the edumacation.
difference here VOR.....the Germans thought they could pick on 150 countries and force WHITE POWER down everyone's throat.....
nice try though....
while Satan(Bush) is cramming Demo. down on a 3rd world country by force.....the word here is 3rd WORLD
your welcome for this new edumacation wesson
-
Bush is satan now?
What happened to just Hitler?
-
Like the man said in the movie 'Hamburger Hill'
"If ya don't want to draw down on the yellow man don't, but you still gotta show up."
-
I guess he got a promotion. Viva la Satan BOOSH!!!
-
Originally posted by SLO
difference here VOR.....the Germans thought they could pick on 150 countries and force WHITE POWER down everyone's throat.....
nice try though....
while Satan(Bush) is cramming Demo. down on a 3rd world country by force.....the word here is 3rd WORLD
your welcome for this new edumacation wesson
Oh, ok, now I get it. Thanks.
-
Pongo, not that I disagree with you, but I do make a distinction.
But I would reserve the right to tell the world I thought it was wrong.(many here hate Kerry for the same type of thing).
I do not hate him for protesting the war, or at all. I do not respect him for the way in which he protested the war.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Oh, ok, now I get it. Thanks.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by SLO
sorry but now I have to edumacate u wittle boy....
ever hear of the word ALLIES.....yes ALLIES....you now....the other 150 countries that fought in WW2.
List those 150 countries why dont you. These 150 allied countries are news to me and I thought I knew more than most about ww2.
-
I oppose the war, but their decision to desert is wrong and they should be punished rather than given safe haven.
-
Pongo wins :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
List those 150 countries why dont you. These 150 allied countries are news to me and I thought I knew more than most about ww2.
Careful Hortland, he'll speak baby-talk to you and pat you on the head. ;)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Pongo wins :)
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I oppose the war, but their decision to desert is wrong and they should be punished rather than given safe haven.
those 2 guys are here in Toronto and from what i heard in the news here, they don't meet the criteria to be awarded "safe haven"
im not sure what happens now???:confused:
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
the illegal invasion of iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of people I think qualifies....oh damn, I forgot about those HUGE stockpiles of "nucular", biological and chemical weapons that threatened us all...boy I feel so much safer now! *sigh*
So if something is illegal it is immoral?
Hundreds of thousands - LOL
Even the kookiest lefty sites aren't claiming more than 10,000 dead.
-
(not being a smart bellybutton here at all)
at least some of the people in this forum, who I previously thaught were America hating liberals, know what the words duty and honor mean. I'm surprised to say the least.
These guys dont deserve to be shot but imprisoned to say the least. They are a disgrace! We have America's finest serving in Iraq and Aghansitan right now and Americas worst running to Canada.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Careful Hortland, he'll speak baby-talk to you and pat you on the head. ;)
had to with you...and look....it worked:D
-
I disagree Pongo. This is a case of desertion not AWOL. His actions are are both indicative of a shortage of moral character and lack of concern for his fellow soldiers. Frankly they are likely far better off without him as they would never have been able to count on him in a crisis, he's too much of a coward as his running away has shown. He took an oath he should have held to his word. If he wanted to become a conscientous objector there are options to do so. He just didn't want to live up to his obligations. If he ever returns he needs to be charged, tried and incarcerated.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
List those 150 countries why dont you. These 150 allied countries are news to me and I thought I knew more than most about ww2.
you haven't changed Hort...you still think you know more....nice self centered attitude....same ol' same ol'
it was an intended that way Hort.....
just like 99.9% of Americans think THEY won WW2 ALONE....
and If you really want the number of Allies....why don't you go and have fun searching it yourself....
should be easy in your case....cause there was just 1.
-
I think that if you've signed up to fight for your country and refuse to do so by leaving said country, you just should not be allowed back. Forget threat of jail or anything like that. Just don't allow 'em back in ever. Not even to vist relatives. I'd bet a policy like that would get some of these guys thinking twice.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think that if you've signed up to fight for your country and refuse to do so by leaving said country, you just should not be allowed back. Forget threat of jail or anything like that. Just don't allow 'em back in ever. Not even to vist relatives. I'd bet a policy like that would get some of these guys thinking twice.
would you go fight a 3rd world country because Martin said so....
-
Well, that's pretty much the case. They aren't allowed to come back into the country, unless they'd like to go to prison. If there was no punishment, then what would ever keep them from coming back?
-
Originally posted by SLO
just like 99.9% of Americans think THEY won WW2 ALONE....
I can't help but think that you're creating facts as you go, SLO. Call it a hunch or an eerie intuition.
-
I recall a number of years ago when I was working "Foot Patrol" in our downtown area and dealing with a fellow on a numerious occasions. It seemed he felt it was okay to turn young girls out on the street to work in order to pay for his chosen lifestyle. ANyway, as some of you know it's difficult to get these scums before the courts as the girls are terrified to testify. Well this one fellow was bragging to me about how he used to be in the US Navy but during a port call in Vancouver he deceided he had enough and "jumped ship" so to speak. I tucked this bit of info away in case I could use it some time. About a year later I was talking to him and he mentioned he was going to New York for a visit, I asked him when and what airline, just chatting him up. The dummy tells me everything including the flight number.
I made a call to US immigration and let them know that this fellow was on the way and perhaps some of his pld "ship mates" might be interested in seeing him arrive safely.
He was met by Navy Police (Shore Patrol ?) and I did not see him for over 2 years. When he finally made it back to Canada he told me he served the balance of his enlistment in "custody". I don't think he ever figured out it was me that dropped the dime on him.
I still smile every time I think of how surprised he must have been when he got off the plane.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
So if something is illegal it is immoral?
Hundreds of thousands - LOL
Even the kookiest lefty sites aren't claiming more than 10,000 dead.
the sanctions in place against iraq resulted in:
The effect of this situation on Iraq's infant and child population is especially severe. From 1991 to 1998, children under 5 died from malnutrition-related diseases in numbers ranging from a conservative 2,690 a month to a more realistic 5,357 per month.
*thats the 'immoral' figures I am referring to
source (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/effects.shtml)
I find it 'telling' that you laugh at ONLY 10,000 dead?
Must be a pleasant life you have running around with your head up your arse...fighting wars based on nothing but lies and killing innocents, destroying cities then suggesting that it's not immoral. What happened to you dude?
-
LOL Sanctions
Dubya's war ENDED the sanctions you doofus.
I didn't laugh at 10,000 dead. I laughed at a person who is so out of touch with reality that he confuses 10,000 and 100,000.
As far as the 10,000 number, it's significant to be sure. But is it too high a price to pay to stop a madman who has already killed hundreds of thousands?
-
Originally posted by SLO
would you go fight a 3rd world country because Martin said so....
Absolutely not, no... and I'd never put myself at the mercy of those kinds of stupid decisions by volunteering.
But if a war came about that threatened my country for example, such as say another WWII, for sure I'd sign up.
There wasn't a draft for WWII... There emerged a war wot made people crawl all over themsleves to try and help. It's the best vote of confidence for war I can think of.
When already enlisted men crawl all over themselves to get OUT of the army... well, it's time to re-examine the cause.
-
Originally posted by Nash
There wasn't a draft for WWII... There emerged a war wot made people crawl all over themsleves to try and help. It's the best vote of confidence for war I can think of.
When already enlisted men crawl all over themselves to get OUT of the army... well, it's time to re-examine the cause.
TRUTH!
-
Originally posted by SOB
Well, that's pretty much the case. They aren't allowed to come back into the country, unless they'd like to go to prison. If there was no punishment, then what would ever keep them from coming back?
What I'm saying is not even allow them to come back, do some time, then continue on with their lives. Just stop them at the border and tellem life as you knew it is over. You are never, ever, coming back here in any way shape or form.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Absolutely not, no... and I'd never put myself at the mercy of those kinds of stupid decisions by volunteering.
But if a war came about that threatened my country for example, such as say another WWII, for sure I'd sign up.
There wasn't a draft for WWII... There emerged a war wot made people crawl all over themsleves to try and help. It's the best vote of confidence for war I can think of.
When already enlisted men crawl all over themselves to get OUT of the army... well, it's time to re-examine the cause.
Yeah there were no soldiers AWOL in WW2. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Nash
There wasn't a draft for WWII...
Maybe not in Northern Mexico, but there was a draft here.
-
Ahh the rolleyes, instantly bringing validation to the argument. Homo.
But seriously, do you think the percentage of deserters or dissenters is anywhere near the same between the WWII and the current war?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
LOL Sanctions
Dubya's war ENDED the sanctions you doofus.
I am aware that the sanctions ended: just because the sanctions are now over does that negate that 100's of thousands in iraq died because of them? for what did all those kids die?
BTW: you have only now started to do the same thing against Syria, wtg!:aok
-
Originally posted by Nash
What I'm saying is not even allow them to come back, do some time, then continue on with their lives. Just stop them at the border and tellem life as you knew it is over. You are never, ever, coming back here in any way shape or form.
Oh, I see...and yeah, that'd be a pretty bad punishment as far as I'm concerned. Although I think I'd choose that over incarceration for an extended period of time.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I am aware that the sanctions ended: just because the sanctions are now over does that negate that 100's of thousands in iraq died because of them? for what did all those kids die?
BTW: you have only now started to do the same thing against Syria, wtg!:aok
We were discussing the morality of the 2003 Iraq War. If you want to discuss the morality of the sanctions that is something else entirely.
-
Originally posted by Nash
When already enlisted men crawl all over themselves to get OUT of the army... well, it's time to re-examine the cause.
there is still almost a million others NOT running to Canada nash. I beleive in the cause but I really dont want to argue it in this thread. Seriously....they kids are cowards....nothing more nothing less.
as far as AWOL goes.....this is more serious, this is desertion....possibly dessertion in the face of an enemy....and missing a movement.
Does it even occure to them that when their company ships out they will be short....that shortfall is going to have to be made up by the guys they left. That means that an allready short handed group is going to have to work extra just to make up for them.
Does our constitution allow for revocation of citizanship? Just curious cause I like the idea of not letting them back into the country.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
But is it too high a price to pay to stop a madman who has already killed hundreds of thousands?
do you have a link to support that claim?
-
Originally posted by SOB
Ahh the rolleyes, instantly bringing validation to the argument. Homo.
*****, please.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yeah there were no soldiers AWOL in WW2. :rolleyes:
Of course there were.... But if you think the deserters, as compared to the volunteers who stuck it out even remotely resembles any sort of statistical significance on any level, I gotta wonder 'bout you... Yer just trying for points or something.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
do you have a link to support that claim?
Well it's common knowledge, but here's a quick one. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm
There is a lot of data out there. Depending on whether you attribute the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, and the UN sanctions to Saddam or not, you can end up in the millions.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Of course there were.... But if you think the deserters, as compared to the volunteers who stuck it out even remotely resembles any sort of statistical significance on any level, I gotta wonder 'bout you... Yer just trying for points or something.
You are the one who attempted to judge the justness of the war by the number of deserters. I merely pointed out that you hadn't proved your point.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
You are the one who attempted to judge the justness of the war by the number of deserters. I merely pointed out that you hadn't proved your point.
well, that was a weak stab at it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
well, that was a weak stab at it.
I do that too, NP.
Hell you are probably right anyways. I certainly would not want to get killed to help those ungrateful bastards. It makes the guys who DID do their duty even more remarkable.
I don't even think that Dubya's War was a very good idea. Other things should have been higher priorities for our military, and had Boosh been patient, Saddam would have eventually done something stupid enough to generate UN and NATO support for kicking his ass. There still would have been much whining, but we wouldn't have had things like European politicians using the Deth to Amreeka theme to win over muslim and lefty voters to ensure their reelection.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
*****, please.
:rolleyes:
Ahhh, damnit, gay is catching!
-
gay is the new orange. just ask lazs.
-
Originally posted by Nash
gay is the new orange. just ask lazs.
And the new Pepsi with half the sugar.
-
Originally posted by VOR
I can't help but think that you're creating facts as you go, SLO. Call it a hunch or an eerie intuition.
quiet at work...everything is spiffy and running well....in a good mood
I like too exagerate some times:D
ok ok...maybe not 99.9...but lets say....99.0:p
-
funk i found a page that said the Baath Party was responsible for between 190K and 250K deaths in iraq over the past 10 years...but that figure is half the number of kids under the age of 5 who died because of those sanctions...and in the link i supplied above the US government acknowledges that the sanctions failed to produce the 'desired results'.
My question now is why are you doing exactly the same thing against Syria? Is Damascus the new centre of terrorism? Bush is claiming that the WMD ( :lol ) that iraq had are now in Syria. And the cycle repeats.
You call saddam a madman...you're right he's a fediddleing total arse...why did the US put him into power in iraq to begin with? Why did the US supply him with the gas he used against the kurds? Why did the US supply both iraq and iran with weapons to kill one another? (Iran contra?) etc... etc...
Saddam is not the only fediddleing total arse madman out there. Some town in Tx is missing their's.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I am aware that the sanctions ended: just because the sanctions are now over does that negate that 100's of thousands in iraq died because of them? for what did all those kids die?
BTW: you have only now started to do the same thing against Syria, wtg!:aok
Those numbers are bogus. I am amazed that this fact has been discussed in the media and there are still people that quote the original Iraqi propaganda and believe it.
Do a little research on that topic with an open mind. Then come here and let us know if you still believe those numbers.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Those numbers are bogus. I am amazed that this fact has been discussed in the media and there are still people that quote the original Iraqi propaganda and believe it.
Do a little research on that topic with an open mind. Then come here and let us know if you still believe those numbers.
this is one of the links I located this info on:
source (from US) (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/effects.shtml)
If you have another source plz advise habu.
-
The USA did not put Saddam in power... He got into power by bullying out an older cousin of his... What are you smoking?
-
And why are you whining about sanctions? Those were put there by the migthy dear UN multinational coalition of wonderful multilaterall legal action because saddam did not meet his obligations to the mighty dear UN multinational coalition of wonderful multilaterall legal action.
Remember to you guys UN = good! Mkay?
-
ohh... Grun shows up...
I'm picturing tumbleweeds...
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
funk i found a page that said the Baath Party was responsible for between 190K and 250K deaths in iraq over the past 10 years...but that figure is half the number of kids under the age of 5 who died because of those sanctions...and in the link i supplied above the US government acknowledges that the sanctions failed to produce the 'desired results'.
My question now is why are you doing exactly the same thing against Syria? Is Damascus the new centre of terrorism? Bush is claiming that the WMD ( :lol ) that iraq had are now in Syria. And the cycle repeats.
You call saddam a madman...you're right he's a fediddleing total arse...why did the US put him into power in iraq to begin with? Why did the US supply him with the gas he used against the kurds? Why did the US supply both iraq and iran with weapons to kill one another? (Iran contra?) etc... etc...
Saddam is not the only fediddleing total arse madman out there. Some town in Tx is missing their's.
Saddam had plenty of cash to take care of the people in Iraq, sanctions or no. Ever looked into some of the "Palaces" he built? The word "Palace" is an understatement at best. These things are more easily described as "really really nice counties", not to mention other projects he had going. Blaming anyone other than Saddam for kids who died in that time frame is simply wrong.
-
I think its Ironic that they are using some of these palaces as barracks and command centers. Hell they were built with the protection of SH in mind.
I buddy of mine wrote me the other day and his company is HQd and garrisoned at a "palace". He says "its the best dammed barracks he's ever lived in"
-
Yawn..
-
Originally posted by SLO
I like too exagerate some times:D
ok ok...maybe not 99.9...but lets say....99.0:p
Have you considered a career in politics?
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
why did the US put him into power in iraq to begin with?
Why did the US supply him with the gas he used against the kurds?
Why did the US supply both iraq and iran with weapons to kill one another? (Iran contra?) etc... etc...
1st two are completely wrong and AFAIK Iraq was using Soviet weapons vs. Iran. If you want to complain, complain about the USSR. Is everybody in Canada as misinformed as you?
As far as Syria, if you want to start a thread about that, go ahead. I won't read it, because all you have shown here (beyond cut-and-paste) is incorrect information and ad hominem crap.
-
"The first was Jeremy Hinzman, a private first class with the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne"
Fuggin pathetic.
Karaya
-
BS funk...go kill something:lol
you and your kind are nothing more then trailer park trash...where do all you hillbillies come from?
-
Typical liberal, can't win on facts or arguing skills, so he makes personal attacks. Go f u ck yourself.
-
Originally posted by SLO
you haven't changed Hort...you still think you know more....nice self centered attitude....same ol' same ol'
it was an intended that way Hort.....
just like 99.9% of Americans think THEY won WW2 ALONE....
and If you really want the number of Allies....why don't you go and have fun searching it yourself....
should be easy in your case....cause there was just 1.
99.9%? common for you to pull numbers out of your ass?
-
nah, funked is damn good people...
that was a misfire.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
funk i found a page that said the Baath Party was responsible for between 190K and 250K deaths in iraq over the past 10 years...but that figure is half the number of kids under the age of 5 who died because of those sanctions...and in the link i supplied above the US government acknowledges that the sanctions failed to produce the 'desired results'.
My question now is why are you doing exactly the same thing against Syria? Is Damascus the new centre of terrorism? Bush is claiming that the WMD ( :lol ) that iraq had are now in Syria. And the cycle repeats.
You call saddam a madman...you're right he's a fediddleing total arse...why did the US put him into power in iraq to begin with? Why did the US supply him with the gas he used against the kurds? Why did the US supply both iraq and iran with weapons to kill one another? (Iran contra?) etc... etc...
Saddam is not the only fediddleing total arse madman out there. Some town in Tx is missing their's.
he was in power before U.S.A. aided him. U.S.A. aided him because iran was bitter enemy of U.S.A. and iraq fighting iran at time. if you think this isnt the way the world works and has always worked ive got a great house in florida for sale and its a steal.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
99.9%? common for you to pull numbers out of your ass?
There is a special set of facts set aside just for leftist Canadians fervently obsessed with US politics...
-
I have read these replys a couple of times because there seem to be a common thread behind the hate and blame america first crowd .I finally got it gees i can be dense,they are pissed because we did win ww2.Because america is the only country in the history of the world that could have conquered the world but had no desire to,and not only that we were stupid enough to rebuild germany and japan with our own money.Why the enlighten european countries that brought us so much death and misery in the 1900s cant have that.
I believe we are all greatfull for the help all our allies gave us but if not for america those of u alive would be speaking german.You just dont know how close we came to losing.
for the last 45 years or so.....Those that can recognize evil and are willing to fight it have been and will be hated by those that close their eyes to it or imbrace it.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Typical liberal, can't win on facts or arguing skills, so he makes personal attacks. Go f u ck yourself.
room temperature IQ?
HAHA! blow me queer
-
Oh boy, we are deep into debating tactics now. Hey Toronto, when your mommy yells, do you drive harder, or pull out.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Oh boy, we are deep into debating tactics now. Hey Toronto, when your mommy yells, do you drive harder, or pull out.
I see your skills are showing...embicile
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Oh boy, we are deep into debating tactics now. Hey Toronto, when your mommy yells, do you drive harder, or pull out.
btw:when funk yells, do you drive harder or pull out?
-
Losing it I see, eh xrtoronto..
:rofl
yes yell some obscenties at me too
-
we'll see who's laughing in november...and it's going to be sweet:aok
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Typical liberal, can't win on facts or arguing skills, so he makes personal attacks.
Whoa... painting with a wide brush there.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
we'll see who's laughing in november...and it's going to be sweet:aok
What happends in Canada in november?
-
Originally posted by Udie
ya get shot for doing that don't you?
they could. but id bet youll only see that happen if someone deserts from a combat unit that is in a combat zone. for every one of these "men" fleeing their duty there are more than enough signing up or waiting to sign up.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I see your skills are showing...embicile
That says a lot. I think it's time for a nap, xrt, you seem to be a little cranky.
-
Originally posted by SOB
That says a lot. I think it's time for a nap, xrt, you seem to be a little cranky.
I am cranky tonight SOB. Thanks for the advice; I am going to call it an evening.
Cheers man!
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I am aware that the sanctions ended: just because the sanctions are now over does that negate that 100's of thousands in iraq died because of them? for what did all those kids die?
BTW: you have only now started to do the same thing against Syria, wtg!:aok
Just curious here, but why would you NOT put the blame at Saddams feet on this one? Isn't he the one that diverted all the money that was SUPPOSED to go to these poor innocent people to his own pocket? Why would you not blame that scum bag for lining his pockets as opposed to taking care of the Iraqi people?
A quick glance at the Food for Oil U.N. scandal thingy shows that Saddam Hussein raked off 10 billion dollars that went to his family, over 270 other individuals also stole huge amounts.
I wonder how many starving children can be fed with TEN BILLION dollars? It just disgust me the way you gloss over the horrible things Saddam did, and blame them on the U.S.A.
Speaks volums for your character.
I AM suprised at your stance on those deserters. I would have thought you would be all for it. I hope they grow old rotting in prison the chicken 'chits.
p.s. just perusing your last couple of posts. I REALLY need to know where your higher than thou attitude comes from.
you and your kind are nothing more then trailer park trash...where do all you hillbillies come from?
room temperature IQ?
HAHA! blow me queer
I see your skills are showing...embicile
btw:when funk yells, do you drive harder or pull out?
WHAT about anyting that you say shows cleverness OR intelligence? When anybody actually tries to debate you, you digress into childish retorts, and banal one liners. You start out reasonably strong, but like most psuedo-intellectuals, once you have to back up a single thing you say, you can't.
Hope you make it to the con. I would love to tease you to your face.
-
Originally posted by Nash
nah, funked is damn good people...
that was a misfire.
banana, you just wanna go fish'n.:D
Oh btw don't any of you anuses enjoy the summer....?
-
Funked. If the chem weapons used by the Iraqis were of american origin or design would that be bad?
gunslinger.
"Does it even occure to them that when their company ships out they will be short....that shortfall is going to have to be made up by the guys they left. That means that an allready short handed group is going to have to work extra just to make up for them.
"
Exactly. There were ways for this guy to protest. March him out in front of the battalion and look his buddies in the eye and tell them why they have to go and he doenst. Then march himself to jail.
Its not like he was going to be torutured(or even hazed badley) Pay back for your sign up. and your training.
And you home free. Whats that...90k or so?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Funked. If the chem weapons used by the Iraqis were of american origin or design would that be bad?
Yeah it would. It was bad enough that American and European companies helped him. But actually selling chemical weapons to a nutbag like that is bad times.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I am aware that the sanctions ended: just because the sanctions are now over does that negate that 100's of thousands in iraq died because of them? for what did all those kids die?
BTW: you have only now started to do the same thing against Syria, wtg!:aok
Might want to blame your beloved UN and Saddam for the
sanctions there brainiac.
-
Heh that nutbag was your best friend few years ago and you didn't mind when he gassed thousands of civilians.
Then suddenly, when it supported the political goals, gassing civilians was a bad thing and so Iraq had to be occupied.
btw found those WMDs yet?
-
:confused:
That made no sense nor did it support the argument going on...
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw found those WMDs yet?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Heh that nutbag was your best friend few years ago and you didn't mind when he gassed thousands of civilians.
Then suddenly, when it supported the political goals, gassing civilians was a bad thing and so Iraq had to be occupied.
btw found those WMDs yet?
I see straw man construction is a popular Finnish hobby...
This also brings to mind my favorite Eurocommie fallacy. The illogic whereby enhancing Saddam's power was wrong but removing Saddam from power was also wrong. Hell I bet you guys don't replace divots.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Saddam had plenty of cash to take care of the people in Iraq, sanctions or no.
Yep. According to the Oil for Food program guidelines, there was a rigourous accounting of money generated from oil sales, and more importantly, where it was going to be spent. The money was there, but it was not spent on infrastructure. This doesn't even take into account the oil sold in violation of the sanctions.
But I'm having a hard time with the switch from how unjust the sanctions were, to the current war in Iraq? They seem to be two seperate issues, especailly as they come under the control of the United Nations, and would likely still be in place if not for the Invasion.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Hell I bet you guys don't replace divots.
Golfing is for homos.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
So if something is illegal it is immoral?
Hundreds of thousands - LOL
Even the kookiest lefty sites aren't claiming more than 10,000 dead.
10,000 dead..Think about it...
That's the response to the killing of 3000 Americans?
And to a nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack?
I'd feel a lot better about it if it was 10,000 dead Saudis.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I'd feel a lot better about it if it was 10,000 dead Saudis.
WARMONGER!
:p
-Sik
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
this is one of the links I located this info on:
source (from US) (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/effects.shtml)
If you have another source plz advise habu.
-- Information taken from U.N. reports and interviews with U.N. officials
You know who the U.N. officials are don't you? Certainly not biased people with agendas to push.
Yes there is information on the web that totally discredits those figures you keep reporting. I would like you to do the research so you can see how mislead you were.
-
March 2002
The Politics of Dead Children
Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?
By Matt Welch
Are "a million innocent children...dying at this time...in Iraq" because of U.S. sanctions, as Osama bin Laden claimed in his October 7 videotaped message to the world? Has the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) discovered that "at least 200 children are dying every day...as a direct result of sanctions," as advocacy journalist John Pilger maintains on his Web site? Is it official U.N. belief that 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 are dying each month due to its own policy, as writers of letters to virtually every U.S. newspaper have stated repeatedly during the past three years?
The short answer to all of these questions is no.
You can read the rest of this insiteful analysis here:
Link (http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml)
The basic premise that the UN and all those relief agencies use is that they compare infant mortality from all causes against numbers they predict as normal and then blame the difference on sanctions. That pretty much excuses Saddam and all other reasons from the blame. What is amazing to me is that so many people are willing to buy the argument.
That is like me claiming that all the extra cold weather this summer (above seasonal averages) is directly due to .............. <---put in your favorite environmental cause here.
-
from my prespective about the best I could hope for would be that these losers stay in canada.
-
oldest looking 64 year old I have ever seen. I would have said 90.
welcome back! (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5631326)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
They are disserters. They should have had the balls to stand trial for thier beliefs. They swore and oath to defend the US Constitution. If they feel the war goes against the principles of their Constitution, they have a duty to take it to the Judiciary.
Roger that!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
That's the response to the killing of 3000 Americans?
What are you talking about? Even the Bush admin. admits Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What are you talking about? Even the Bush admin. admits Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
Now you've really done it!!!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What are you talking about? Even the Bush admin. admits Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
Sure, after he did his damnedest to muddy the waters.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
-
I suppose a person that used the lump on his shoulders might have assumed that the "linkage" was in possabilities, not fact. That is to say, Saddam would have done everything in his power to create a 9/11/01 type incident. That is what I got from the Admisitration at the time, anyway.
Of course, it is easier to "remind" people of what you want them to think after the fact, re: the whole Democratic party line at this point.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
I suppose That is to say, Saddam would have done everything in his power to create a 9/11/01 type incident.
Do you think that he would have?
-
I certainly think he would have tried, including aiding every terrorist group that would listen to him.
That is the reason I supported the war, not some after the fact democrat alleged "linkages".
-
They deserve prison. America's Military is strictly voluntary.
Nobody twisted their arms to join and they took an OATH. Once more they stole from the public. Taxpayers pay for everything in the Military. In return for that, A soldier, WHO IS IN FACT, a public servant, is expected to honor that oath.
ESPECIALLY when it becomes the most difficult to honor and it is time to lay YOUR life on the line. The Public expects, demands, and deserves NOTHING less from its soldiery.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nobody twisted their arms to join and they took an OATH. ...and they stole from the public.
that's key to the way I see it too crumpp
-
Yeah,
Harbouring these guys is not supporting an anti-war agenda. It is supporting an anti-responsibility agenda.
Crumpp
xrtoronto
-
lol.... "harbouring"...
-
Typing too fast...lol
Harboring
You feel better?
Crumpp
-
You spelled it right the first time.
-
LOL
I spelled it right both times.
Harboring - act of giving shelter
Harbouring - act of giving shelter (old english spelling)
At least according to Websters! Learn something everyday.
Crumpp
-
yeah...
-
About that Oil for Food program.
The responsibility for Iraqi citizens suffering under that falls on the government of Iraq. Had the government complied with the program then none of Iraq's citizens would have suffered at all.
I don't think the infant mortality rate or any of Iraq's average citizens was a concern for Saddam Hussein except in the most self-serving of ways. You only need to examine his extravagant wealth and numerous palaces to see that.
Crumpp
-
About those Mets.
Looks like Oprah is losing weight again.
Synapses prollem?
or... maybe once the spelling situation got cleared up it turns out that I wasn't talking about the spelling at all?
-
or... maybe once the spelling situation got cleared up it turns out that I wasn't talking about the spelling at all?
And do tell Oh master of puzzles.....
:rofl
Crumpp
-
I suck at puzzles...
And I'd be the last person to point out a misspelling (or however that's spelled)... I was laffing at your use of the word.
-
crumpp, I believe what NASH is trying to suggest is that your use of the word "harbouring" is harsh. Those two guys came here seeking asylum...from all reports I have heard in our Toronto news is that they fall short of the criteria to be given a 'safe haven'.
We are dealing with a beaurocracy...and it is not likely to move swiftly...when does any office of a beaurocracy move expeditiously?
I believe in the end, you will have them back in US custody.
-
aye.
Crumpp's words: "Harbouring these guys is not supporting an anti-war agenda. It is supporting an anti-responsibility agenda."
"Harboring" is Bush lingo wrt terrorists and the countries inside which they inhabit. I don't think he had US servicemen in mind.
US servicemen who come to Canada will not be "harbored" and you'll get these guys back.
But you use this stuff to say we support an "anti-war agenda". We are not anti-war. We're anti-stupid war. We're in Afghanistan fighting terrorists. Just because we decided not to get distracted by this other war which has nothing to do with terrorism, please do not belittle our commitment.
-
I guess they had some faith in their government that they wouldn't have to go to some Arab state and fight some illegal/immoral war..They should get decorated for showing some balls.
When you sign up for military service you do so unconditionally. It is made clear to you that you do not set policy and that you may be put in harms way without understanding why or agreeing with what is happening.
It clearly shows to me that you are one of those people who have a floating morality scale. In other words, your morals change as it is convenient for you. Try sticking to convictions now and then, your life won't seem so hollow and unrewarding.
-
Nash, with all honesty. How can you ignore the terrorist ties to Iraq.
Terrorist raining camps-Salamon Pak
Harboring known terrorists-Abu Nidal
Supporting terrorists-Palestinian
Those are three irrefutable instances of Saddam aiding and abetting terrorists at a State level; there are many more, as if they were required.
-
Now, in your mind put that with the fact that Saddam manufactured and used, but would not document the destruction of terroristic WMD. I can think of no other reasons required to remove him from power.
Is it because it is a hard and dirty job and people are dying? They were before and they will be after, and even though it sucks, sometimes you just have to do it. This is one of those times, and you should be happy, and proud, that we are willing to make the sacrifices in the pursuit of being left the **** alone!
-
Liz.... If I wanted to Stamp OUT! Disnelyand from everyone's conscience perhaps I would invade Botswana first because that's where the Daffy Ducks are stiched.
The ME is RIFE with terrorism, and terrorist training grounds.
Pointing out where the training grounds of some terrorists might be in country X, has scant little to do with convincing anyone that those particular training grounds are the most effective ones to be going after.
Yeah... something there.... maybe. Maaaaaybe. But, say, nothing to do with anything that's been a threat to you. Compared to others.
Meanwhile, Bin Laden is kickin' it with his bad self in his crib with his homies.
-
But you use this stuff to say we support an "anti-war agenda". We are not anti-war. We're anti-stupid war. We're in Afghanistan fighting terrorists. Just because we decided not to get distracted by this other war which has nothing to do with terrorism, please do not belittle our commitment
Nobody is belittling your COUNTRIES commitments so don't get defensive. I am fully aware these guys are coming back to the states and Canada is not sheltering them.
There are folks, very misguided folks, who do feel they should not face justice just because they don't believe the Iraqi war is justified. Those are the ones who would "harbor" criminals like these two. Contrary to popular fiction, if the Military had it's way we wouldn't have any more wars. We are the ones who do the bleeding and dying.
Still would want the job. You get great toys, travel, adventure sports, and a great health care plan! Just solve all the conflicts at the diplomacy table. Unfortunately life is not that way.
Crumpp
-
yeah yeah yeah neat toys and everything but YOU said that Canada is harboring US chicken*****s in accordance with an "anti-war agenda/anti-responsibility agenda."
aint the case my friend.
-
So basically, Nash, it is ignore the hard evidence and go with how you feel? handsomehunk.
-
Gas prices are still 2 bucks a gallon.
War for oil my ass.
-
"handsomehunk" aside (I've always thought you were a thoughtfull person but alas, prolly "handsomehunk" thinking)...
When I think of the Middle East, Terrorists, and Hard Evidence I don't exactly land on Iraq. Hey, just me.
-
Nash is the Canadian government moving to repatriate these fugitives?
-
Originally posted by irritant
Gas prices are still 2 bucks a gallon.
War for oil my ass.
When adjusted for inflation:
(http://www.chartoftheday.com/20030827.gif)
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
-
I have no idea Grun just what our government is doing about your glirly fighters. Google it or something.
-
Well, Nash, you are a handsomehunk, then. I gave you three irrefutable direct links to Iraqi terrorism, and you ignore them.
-
Oh wow... You are an amazing man, Liz. Three years, a kazillion appeals to the people and a few UN presentations about the dangers of Iraqi sponsored terrorism, along with the complete lack of so called "hard evidence" and your very own US Senate calling this a bunch of bunk and the resignation of the head of the CIA and YOU, LIZ, HAVE UNEARTHED THE TRUTH.
wow dude I am in awe.
Yer right, I am a handsomehunk and I hear there's some openings at a certain intel agency.
-
I can think of a handful of adjectives to describe Nash. "handsomehunk" isn't on my list.
-
Some folks fit facts their world and others adjust their world to fit the facts, Lizking.
You can see that Nash is an insightful man who does not jump to conclusions or allow his emotions to get the best of him.
:lol
Crumpp
-
Screwed that up! It's late and I'm hitting the sack.
Some folks fit the facts to their world and others adjust their world to fit the facts.
Crumpp
-
"Screwed that up" is shorthand for "it sounded like a good line when I heard it but I'm not sure how to use it in the real world, especially when its use contradicts itself... but duh..... you get the idea, er... GO TEAM!"
-
Ohhhh Canadaaaaaaaaa
Our new home now for gooooood
We volunteeeered
I guess we never shooouuuld
When we got the call
We ran from it all
Up North we did go
Where there's lots of snow
Ohhhh Canadaaaaaaaaa
We don't gotta fight up here
Ohhhh Canadaaaaaaaaa
I think I'll like being queer
-
Ohhh I am being an idiot
Our home and native I am being an idiot
True, patriot I am being an idiot
In all our son's I am being an idiot...
lol
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Nash, with all honesty. How can you ignore the terrorist ties to Iraq.
Terrorist raining camps-Salamon Pak
Harboring known terrorists-Abu Nidal
Supporting terrorists-Palestinian
Those are three irrefutable instances of Saddam aiding and abetting terrorists at a State level; there are many more, as if they were required.
Well, I'll do two out of three for mow.
The training camps were in Kurdish controlled, and US and GB protect terroritory.
SH didn't support "terrorists" he support the families of terrorists whose homes were being arbitrarily and illegal destroyed by a foreign power.
-
The training camps were in Kurdish controlled, and US and GB protect terroritory.
BS - The "camp" was the size of Rhode Island and was along the Iranian/Iraqi border NOT in the Northern No fly Zone. Either Saddam supported them or was powerless to stop them.
SH didn't support "terrorists" he support the families of terrorists whose homes were being arbitrarily and illegal destroyed by a foreign power.
Half-truth - Iraqi Intelligence Operatives meet with AQ representatives on several occasions at various sites in Europe. A high ranking Iraqi Intelligence Official (not an operative, a policy maker) met with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan some months before 9-11. The contents of those meetings are unknown but that they occured is a fact.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I think I'll like being queer
like you have a choice:rofl
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
like you have a choice:rofl
I don't buy into that "genetically homo" crap you pinkboys like to spread (amongst other things). :rofl
-
Compaq Presario 6410NX
AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (1.67 GHz)
512 MB DDR SDRAM
ATI driven Xtasy 9600 (256 MB) Video
Win XP Home (updated)
DX 9.0b
56K Dialup <===
no cable service in your trailor park junior?:eek:
-
What da fug that gotta do with your sexual orientation, Gladys? :lol
-
Quit trying to change the subject Arlo.
-
It all works out. The Toronto Gen-X chickaboi posts that tards choose Canada then spends the rest of the thread proving it's the native land of tards. ;)
-
How many immature people can fit in one post?
-
Originally posted by Jayclark
How many immature people can fit in one post?
Answer: 1
Threads, otoh, have infinite capacity. :D
-
lol
-
I honestly can't believe you would glorify Michael Moore and use that fat ass's face for an avatar? I wouldn't piss on the rat fuc*** face if his teeth were on fire.