Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

This is bullshit

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=611878

Bet Pierre Trudeau's spirit is shaking with rage!
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 24th, 2005
Good thing that an apeal is in order.

"He said the Immigration and Refugee Board had not allowed him to argue that the war in Iraq is illegal and would make that complaint before a federal appeals court. "
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 24th, 2005
He _volunteered_ to serve in a national forces that has a long and proud history of odd and sometimes unjustified invasions, and a part of his position he signed up for is mindlessly killing people on command. That has absolutely no comparison to Vietnam where people -- people who could be complete pacifists -- were drafted and forced to serve.

Just so everyone knows, most Canadians aren't anti-US whack-jobs like Denman here. I empathize with these poor family men and really feel sorry for their situation, but they are by no measure refugees. The judgement was correct, and the appeal will be denied or yield the same outcome - anyone who isn't busting a nut with their hate for the US can see that.
Permalink ,..., 
March 25th, 2005
------" and a part of his position he signed up for is mindlessly killing people on command."----

Balls! People might do it, some tmight even sign up because they think they'd enjoy doing it, but to suggest that a member of the US armed forces signs up in order to disregard the internationl law the US helped to set up at Nuremburg let alone simple morality is insulting.

Your argument would mean that members of the German armed forces who opposed Nazism would have been refused political asylum.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 25th, 2005
,...,

CLEARLY you're blinded by FASCIST Bush Government LIMES. The NEOCON Secret Society has pulled the FLEECE over your proletariate eyes. Obviously republican DOGS have infiltrated your DEEP FREEZE FACILITY. I keep mine in my garage.

In the future please don't HELP TO SPREAD LIMES. Our U$ "GOVERNMENT" does not need your ASSISTANCE.

MONKEYS AND CHRISTMAS.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
mup-PET! mup-PET! mup-PET!
Permalink Steamrolla 
March 25th, 2005
In all honesty I agree with Dan, I think this is bullshit. I don't understand why Canada isn't willing to give this guy asylum. Didn't they allow it during Vietnam?

Is the draft the difference? I would think that atrocities against civilians and the legality of the war would be the central issues.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
***The Pentagon has urged the deserters to return to the United States and take up their concerns at their respective military bases.***


AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA

::wheeze::

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAAA
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
These soldiers derserve to go to jail when they come back. They volunteered for the ARMED services. By doing so they made an oath to follow the commander in chief. If you do not agree with specific orders you CAN question them and raise issues.
To join a voluntary armed service, but saying I only want to be in the military if we are not fighting anyone is the ultimate in pathetic.
(Yes I am a veteran)

Vietnam as stated was different, you were being FORCED to server.

War = inocents will be collateral damage, there has not been a war where this has not been the case. How can you expect to use this as an argument to not do something you VOLUNTEERED to do?

Lastly, I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but if I was in the army today, and my buddies and I were ordered to go, I would go. I also think Bush is a total idiot, but he is still the president, and one of the few things that the US has going for it is we stand up for our own, even if they are idots.
Permalink A Real American 
March 25th, 2005
+++Lastly, I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but if I was in the army today, and my buddies and I were ordered to go, I would go. I also think Bush is a total idiot, but he is still the president, and one of the few things that the US has going for it is we stand up for our own, even if they are idots.+++

Here's why you're a bad American. If you believe that the war in Iraq is unjustified, illegal, immoral, etc, then why would you go ahead and fight in it anyway? People die in wars, by the thousands. Lives are ruined. Families are destroyed. If you believe that the war is unjust, then how can you justify these things?

Volunteering for the military is not the same as volunteering to commit atrocities.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
...and one of the few things that the US has going for it is we stand up for our own, even if they are idiots...

Please, please, please tell me this is a troll/joke.

Sweet Jesus.
Permalink bionicroach 
March 25th, 2005
Interesting that it was in the news today that the head of the Admiralty in the UK informed the Prime Minister that he would refuse to order the troops into action in Iraq unless the Prime Minister could give him an assurance that the war was legal.

CYA or conscience? Who knows.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 25th, 2005
No I think it was honest. No Commander in Chief is going to order troops into battle if he thinks they're all going to be liable to be treated as war criminals in the process.

This wasn't a secret at the time either, it was leaked heavily and the tone was that it wasn't pressure to get an absolute yes but pressure to get clarity.

I don't know why any serving soldier had to go AWOL if they had a genuine understanding that the action was unlawful. Under the Geneva Convention a soldier has the duty not to carry out unlawful orders. There were a few, I believe, that became non-combatants during the invasion because of this and they were sent home to Germany.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 25th, 2005
Democracy Now interviewed a number of soldiers who refuse to fight in this war, including Hinzman and his lawyer:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/15/157205
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/15/1357241


There was a highly decorated Marine who spent over 33 years in the military, Smedley Butler. At some point, he got tired of the racket:
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

"WAR is a racket. It always has been."

"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"

"Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill."
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 25th, 2005
And it's interesting that the guys who prosecute this war with the most vigor, Bush and Cheney, refused real military service during a major war. You can research this. The guys who did serve, like Gen. Wesley Clark, even John Kerry -- they were even mocked for their duties as they ran for president.

I honestly can't say Bush sticks up for most Americans, from the insane social security changes to sending soldiers to get maimed.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 25th, 2005
Interesting. Going AWOL during time of war used to be a capital offense.

And yes, as soon as you sign your name on the dotted line (as a volunteer) in the induction center, they promptly tell you that you have signed away lots of your civil rights.

They don't actually SAY you've signed up to kill anyone they tell you to point your rifle at -- and in fact, you DO have the responsibility to not carry out any illegal orders (nice catch-22 there). But you are signing up to go in harms way, no question. Most (like myself) try to game the system so we sign up for the Navy, where people are shooting at your ship, not at you personally.

People who volunteer for the Army don't have that option, and people who volunteer for the Marines are just crazy, but we need them too.

So yes, if he had gone to Canada to avoid volunteering for the military, I don't think the Canadians would have a problem. Going AWOL to Canada and claiming asylum from the US Military is just an abuse of the privelege for everyone else.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 25th, 2005
The guy had actually asked to be considered a conscientious objector before he was sent to Afghanistan, well before the Iraq war started.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 25th, 2005
+++And yes, as soon as you sign your name on the dotted line (as a volunteer) in the induction center, they promptly tell you that you have signed away lots of your civil rights.+++

You still don't sign up to be complicit in war crimes. Sorry Allan, not buying.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
"To join a voluntary armed service, but saying I only want to be in the military if we are not fighting anyone is the ultimate in pathetic."

That is the key here "VOLUNTARY"! No one is being forced to join the VOLUNTEER army. Would did the soldier think he was going to have to do with the rifle/training he was given?  I don't understand people who, voluntarily join the military, and then all of a sudden go pacifist. That is like a vegetarian volunteering to go to a steak house then complaining because meat is being served. For pete's sake if your a pacifist, then don't join the military.
Permalink Steve-O 
March 25th, 2005
Well, muppet, you have a point there. Since you are supposed to NOT obey "illegal" orders, and since he is arguing that the Iraq war IS illegal, then he must not obey the orders that he thinks are illegal sending him to Iraq.

Unfortunately the court that usually decides these things is the Military court. And I'll bet a Military court is not going to find that his orders to Iraq are illegal. So he's kind of stuck.

Mind you, they won't execute him or anything. He may just get some prison time and a dishonorable discharge. Running to Canada and asking for asylum is still not right.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 25th, 2005
+++Unfortunately the court that usually decides these things is the Military court. And I'll bet a Military court is not going to find that his orders to Iraq are illegal. So he's kind of stuck.

Mind you, they won't execute him or anything. He may just get some prison time and a dishonorable discharge. Running to Canada and asking for asylum is still not right.+++

"He's doing what he's morally obligated to do, and he's really boned because the "judicial" system available to him is incredibly biased and not impartial, but he's totally wrong not to submit himself to it."


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAAAHAHA
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
Yippee, I will sign up for the military reserve so I can get great benefits/pension and go on vacation two weeks a year.. yippeee.... Oh shit, theres a war?...I want out!

Pussies. Like other's have said. Don't sign up for the Army if you don't want to fight. Canada was VERY smart in not letting him have assylum.
Permalink Jared M. 
March 25th, 2005
Still, if you are ordered to invade Canada, will you go?
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 25th, 2005
It has a lot more to do with this specific war and the fact that it's illegal and immoral than it has to do with the fact that's a war period, and you fucks know it.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
Who has established that the war was in fact illegal and immoral? You? Liberals & Media & Hollywood? Popular Opinion? Congress never declared the war to be illegal, hell they approved it. Just because you disagree does in no way establish any illegality or immorality?
Permalink Steve-O 
March 25th, 2005
Why join the military when you can go to HBS, then get a high paying job? It's just silly.
Permalink somebody else 
March 25th, 2005
Steve-O,

The "absolute truth", if there is such a thing (most Republicans don't believe there is), is not relevant here. What is relevant is whether this man believes, to the core of his being, that this war is illegal. If he truly believes that, then he has the moral (and patriotic) duty to oppose it by refusing to participate in it (not accepting the illegal order to proceed into an illegal war).

The fucks in this thread trying to debase this man by implying that he's a coward who simply doesn't want to fight need to examine their motives for doing so. I think it's a lot more patriotic to defend what America stands for than to defend (or follow blindly) a particular administration.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
The problem is that people don't usually sign up to kill. They sign up to defend their nation.

We pay for their training and readiness to defend.

Speaking as a citizen, if Canada would've done what our absent politicans failed to do, I'd love 'em.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 25th, 2005
Let's face it. The guy is either a coward or a moron. Vietnam was just 30 years ago. To suggest that anyone enlisting now didn't know that they might be sent to fight in a war that they didn't agree with is ludicrous.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 25th, 2005
Cowboy -

What a fucking load of shit. "You already know your government is corrupt, so protesting it is fucking stupid."

Yeah, great American you are, you piece of crap.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
We all know that this war was pushed as a race to defend ourselves from "weapons of mass destruction." In fact, George Pataki at the Republican Convention claimed Saddam was "a walking talking weapon of mass destruction."

Our military is a reflection of the American will to defend ourselves. And many of us do want our soldiers punished for realizing they WILL NOT KILL OR DIE mindlessly. But they WILL DIE for the Republic.

Had Bush and Cheney, both cowards who refused to fight, accepted the US Army War College's eminently reasonable plans, we wouldn't have this discussion:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=182&CFID=271263&CFTOKEN=47399918
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 25th, 2005
It is amazing how vigorously you guys will argue points that you know you can't actually support beyond opinion. It appears people actually start to believe not only their own made up facts and assertions (not surprising) but other peoples made up facts and assertions on the spot. Hows that happen? Are people really this bad at thinking?
Permalink ronk! 
March 25th, 2005
Actually I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in the article that the guy deserted because of his beliefs regarding the legality of the war (and the Afghan war).

It's supposing (and arguing) that he's simply a coward who doesn't want to fight that's unsupported.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
"The problem is that people don't usually sign up to kill. They sign up to defend their nation."

That has to be the most naive thing I ever read about military service. Hinzman didn't enlist as a cook, a supply clerk, or a mechanic. No, he enlisted as an infantrymen and went airborne.

Going airborne is optional and means that you're almost automatically assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division. The 82nd's de facto motto is "Death from Above". Let me repeat. You don't just get assigned to an airborne division willy-nilly. You have to opt-in for it in your enlistment.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 25th, 2005
Which only goes to show that he's not a coward unwilling to fight. Which makes it more likely that his protests against this SPECIFIC war are legit (at least to him).
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
I fully agree with you, Cowboy Coder -- patriotism is a naive thing. Which you lose when you see a video of Rumsfeld hemming and hawing why we won't armor up soldiers' vehicles.

Let's take one of the soldiers interviewed in my earlier link:

"BRANDON HUEY: I grew up in San Angelo, Texas. So, also when I signed the contract, I wasn't naive to the fact that I could be deployed to fight in a war, but I did have this image growing up that I would be sort of – a good guy, if you will, and fighting for just causes and fighting to defend my country, and after I got out of basic training, and when I realized that basically the U.S. had attacked a country that was no threat to them, in an act of aggression, it shattered that myth, I guess you could say."

Now, do I think Hinzman himself was justified for going AWOL? That's an individual situation, and I can be convinced of either side depending on the facts. But some soldiers are definitely justified. You seem to concede that Bush and Cheney were "smart" enough not to be cowards. Even Kerry, puppet that he is, fought.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 25th, 2005
Excuse me, I meant, "You seem to concede that Bush and Cheney were 'smart' enough to be cowards."
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 25th, 2005
I don't buy the assertion that our government is morally corrupt. In fact, I believe just the opposite. My assertion was that some people were opposed to the war in Vietnam, not that I felt there were correct. If Hinzman felt it was immoral to kill in order to defend the freedom of others, than he should have made that decision prior to enlisting.

Enlisting in the service is a very serious commitment. I honor my commitments and don't respect those that don't honor theirs.

I hated every day of my 3 years in the Army. But I made a commitment when I enlisted. That meant if I were sent off to war, I would go no matter what.

I was on the recall list for the first Gulf War. I didn't entirely agree with that war, suspecting that it was more about defending Kuwait's oil fields than their freedom. But I would have gone nonetheless. No Canadian wuss-out for me, thanks.

BTW, if you can't defend your position without personal attacks, then you can't defend it at all.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 25th, 2005
Your position seems to be "All Hail our Glorious Leaders, no matter WHAT they do!", Cowboy, which isn't a defensible position in the first place, so I guess we're even.





you fucking idiot.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
"BTW, if you can't defend your position without personal attacks, then you can't defend it at all."

This is muppet's modus operandi. She couldn't do otherwise.
Muppet you have the mouth of a sailor, how did such a little lady learn such trash talking?
Permalink Steve-O 
March 25th, 2005
My position is that if they call on our soldiers to go in and take out a despot, then by all means soldiers should follow their leader.

If they call on our soldiers to go in and wipe out a village of men, women, and children, then the soldier has a moral right and obligation to protest and disobey orders. they teach you that in boot camp, in fact.

The more tenuous position is when you are called upon to go fight in the streets of Baghdad or to bomb a munitions depot near a hospital where innocent civilians will get killed. This is tragic, but we can't let a ruthless dictator use these ploys to avoid conflict.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 25th, 2005
>>you fucking idiot

Of course - anyone who wastes time on JoS OT is.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 25th, 2005
Steve-O

What's your problem? are you a rightwing asshat who refuse to understand this war WAS/IS in fact illegal? what happened to WMD? "oops we didn't again?"

shove your right wing attitude up your ass.
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 25th, 2005
"I don't buy the assertion that our government is morally corrupt. "

Because you are from Texas obviously and there's something wrong MENTALLY with the right wing folks from the South.
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 25th, 2005
Steve-O

I believe you are one of those types who believe letting a vegtable die is a sin but killing 100,000 people in the name of finding "WMDs" is moral. The whole war had nothing do with WMDs and Sadam; it has everything to do with Neo-cons agenda to control the region and and Christianizing the fuck out of Middle East - oh yeah and this is legal and the dude should die for it.

Two words: FUCK YOU!

You should take your sorry ass and visit some Middle Eastern countries to understand the dynamics of what goes on the there instead of being a flag waving stupid clueless right wing douchbag.
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 25th, 2005
"Just so everyone knows, most Canadians aren't anti-US..."

It's not anti US you idiot, it's anti Neo-cons currently spreading their indoctrination around the world.

And yeah for your info, only folks on the Bay street and Steven Harper's cohorts in Canada support W.

Have you forgotten the anti war protests on the streets on Montreal, Toronto, Kingston, Vancouver, etc.?

What you suffering from infriority complex when talking to Americans? grow a pair you numbjob.
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 25th, 2005
"And yeah for your info, only folks on the Bay street and Steven Harper's cohorts in Canada support W."

Dan, I will guarantee that your rhetoric went back far beyond Bush. You're just trying to surround your pathetic claptrap with some idea that you're just agreeing with patriotic Americans like muppet (who truly do love their nation but disagree with the policies of this government), when in actuality you were just as vitriolic about the evils of the Clinton government. I've met your kind.

"Have you forgotten the anti war protests on the streets on Montreal, Toronto, Kingston, Vancouver, etc.?"

The same protests were on lots of American streets, often with much bigger turnouts. Again you're trying to camoflague your steaming rhetoric under this guise that it's all about the Iraq war. Bullshit Dan. I will say with certainty that you were flailing about calling for hari kari during the brief Afghanistan conflict as well.

"What you suffering from infriority complex when talking to Americans? grow a pair you numbjob."

Your delusion has so warped your mind.

For the record I don't like the Iraq war, and I don't like the Bush presidency. However if someone enlisted in an armed services where something like this callup was a _very_real_ possibility...sorry the sympathy card doesn't play here. Our agreement, as a country, with the war has NOTHING to do with the punishment someone faces for going in breach of one of the most solemn and serious commitments they can sign. It would be IDIOTIC to let these guys pass as refugees, and only pestulent hate-balls like yourself, so tied up in spitting in the US' face where possible would even consider it.
Permalink ,..., 
March 25th, 2005
,...,


I call your bullshit again. Canada as a soverign nation has responsibility to accept refugees and I don't see any reason why this case is different - unless some liberal assholes - possibly you are one of them - are afraid that this might "hurt" the already strained relationship with the US.

And yeah there's difference between liking America and/o American people and liking their foreign policy and if you fail to recognize the difference, you haven't grown up yet.

And one last thing, do a random poll and you will find that 90% of Canadians share the same sentiments as mine - unless as I said they are either:

a) belong to the Bay street;
b) are member of Dr Evil (Stephen Harper) gang.

Lastly, grab a Molson, you seem you really need a cold one.
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 25th, 2005
" It would be IDIOTIC to let these guys pass as refugees, and only pestulent hate-balls like yourself, so tied up in spitting in the US' face where possible would even consider it. "

On second thought, you better off drinking Scotch, you are so clueless and erratic that you really need something strong.

Bet you voted for the conservative party in the last election. You look like one of those assholes who run around advocating privatization, better relationsship with the US (read sucking up to whatever they say) and bashing the universal healthcare. You probably were close to committing suicide when your idol - Mr Harper who was so full of himself at the last days of election - got fucked and lost the game hey?
Permalink Dan Denman 
March 25th, 2005
My good friend Dan,

For your humor, I actually voted Liberal (although I did so hoping that they only got a minority, which they did). I'm a libertarian at heart.

"Canada as a soverign nation has responsibility to accept refugees and I don't see any reason why this case is different - unless some liberal assholes - possibly you are one of them - are afraid that this might "hurt" the already strained relationship with the US."

They're NOT FUCKING REFUGEES. Do you understand? A refugee is a poor woman who is at tremendous risk of being raped and killed in the Danfur region of Sudan because she's a little too black. A refugee is not someone who voluntarily signed up go to war, accepting all of the perks and benefits of that decision, but then gets cold feet and become superficial moral objectors when call up day comes. Furthermore, the worst they'll face for failing to live up to contractual obligations is jail time. If that's your definition of refugee then that's an absurdly loose standard.
Permalink ,..., 
March 26th, 2005
Yup, ,..., has it right. The guy should present his case in the Military court.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 26th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics