allan, Google uses automated profile-typing technology for its ads based on the page's tags. The results can be breathtaking for sheer contrariness: ads for Bob Roberts University on a site which promotes existentialism, cosmetic and fashion ads on sites against the objectification of women and body image abuse, ads for guns on animal welfare sites. To quote Yoda: spot-sighting readings for your post-graduate thesis it is not.

I completely sympathize with Joshua Key's predicament. The Kootenays would be a good place for him because of the Doukhabors and Quakers. Conscientious objection and the peace movement are social traditions around here.

I suppose it's no surprise that military recruiters who basically lie about the options available to soldiers would also engage in covering up their own atrocities without a second thought. I should be surprised that so many people joining the army think they have options apart from the usual job requirements of slaughter, rapine, mayhem, plunder and devastation. But I guess when you slash the budgets for anything but McEducation, that ignorance stops surprising you too.

Curious. Army aptitude tests go on a point system, but you certainly need more than 50%, from my understanding. Poor guy. Sounds like he got taken in by a couple of desperate recruiters. Military quotas + Nice but not-very-smart desperate guy = Deserter?

Unfortunatly, we'll have to uphold the law if he gets caught. Actually with a good enough lawyer and some investigation, we could see if those recruiters commited fraud... that's Key's only hope of legally staying in Canada.

Thanks Te Aro Arahina, I had forgoten about Google's abilities. It also has the ability to send ads with e-mails that link to the e-mail susbject if I remember right, which was enough to ensure I don't ever sign up with that server.

The ad switch just seemed really bizarre. Maybe I'm getting old and sometimes expect the expected to happen.

Wrong world, I guess.

I suspect these stories have been around for over a hundred years. I didn't sing up for this....going to war thing! Actually you did, read the fine print. I suppose a few Americans do sign on and genuinely believe they are not going to be used. With child #3 on the way, you decided to look the other way! How about we make the story more authentic. "You signed on feeling that there was no where to turn." "You new there was a chance that you would have to go to war if called upon to defend whatever..." This story is not about the fact you were ignorant to the job discription but the criminal way it was carried out in a foriegn land. Just to set the record straight. And for all those in the future who just happen to forget what the military is really about, job one is killing the enemy. Job two, prepare self to carry out job one.
Makes you think poverty is part of the US domestic policy so they will always have a recruitment pool....

I welcome Joshua Key and family to Canada and hope that, if asked for, Canadian citizenship will promptly be accorded them.

Seeing and experiencing what he did in Iraq, if Joshua Key had remained to fight there, I cannot see how Key could not have considered himself an accessory to the crime of indiscriminate killing and injuring of innocent people.

If ever those responsible for the contriving of that illegal war and occupation of Iraq go to trial, I hope that evidence, such as can be provided by Joshua Key and others, will be heard.

I know we all want to believe the worst about the American military, but as someone with a little knowledge, I wonder about a few key details of the story.

1. Having children is in no way a bar to enlisting in the military. Its not even something worth making up. Whether his wife was pregnant or not is not an issue. The only time this ever came up was when the Commandant of the Marines suggested not accepting new marines with families. That was quickly rejected.

2. It is impossible to enlist for a "nondeployable" unit. One only enlists for a job. I'm not sure where he came up with that. It certainly isn't in the contract. Why would the Army need a non deployable bridge unit anyway, what's it doing in the US?

3. There are no "rapid deployment" units in Fort Carson, that would need a brand new engineer. If he was assigned there it should have been no surprise.

4. His comments of an escape route are laughable. When I was on leave all I had to do was drive across the border, just like everyone else. Even if you watch the X Files, the idea that the USG is going to have spies watching a regular soldier is a little far fetched.

5. Awful things happen in war, intentionally and unintentionally--but the sum total of this account is that the young man probably didnt have the maturity to be a soldier, and a less than realistic grasp of what the real world is all about. If he has evidence of war crimes, bring them up to the Inspector General, and save the conspiracy stories for the movies.

6. I can certainly accept being against fighting, and I can even accept opposition to the Iraq War. These are mature and reasoned opinions. but making the Baathists into some sort of Warsaw Resistance is a bit beyond the pale. Ask a Shia or a Kurd what life was like when the Baath were in charge. No matter how you dress it, the leaders of the resistance are fighting to impose the Saddam government without Saddam.

Its sad that such over the top rhetoric is what passes for reasoned debate these days.

When your supreme court is stacked with activist judges, when your military is blatently engaged in atrocity which it barely even bothers to cover-up, when your president is a bald-faced liar and murderer, then you shouldn't have to prove anything to stay in my country.

Here's what US military prosecutors think of their own tribunals:

In e-mail messages provided to the Journal and to the New York Times, Carr and Preston accused their superiors of rigging the tribunals against the detainees and charged their fellow prosecutors with ignoring allegations of torture, failing to protect evidence that could have exonerated some detainees and withholding information from their superiors.

Here's a link to that story:

http://tinyurl.com/7w7h3

I do have sympathy for the plight of Mr. Keys. I am also pleased to see that he is able to now understand what he signed up to the military for and what the implications are.
As someone with a personal knowledge of the military, I can state that the purpose of the military is to kill and/or be killed. Society makes a contract with individuals (soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines) that they receive certain benefits and have a secure life until they are asked by society to do its killing or dying. That may sound very mercenary, but that is the way it is!
Mr. Keys volunteered for the military. He was not drafted. He accepted the contract, except now he does not like the conditions of the contract. That is how one gets out to the contract.
Mr. Key chose to start a new career, professional Iraq war deserter in Canada (and no doubt any other country that choses to listen to him). I would feel much better about Mr. Keys if he did the honourable thing and faced the consequences of his original choice then spoke against the war. As it stands I would not support him being given refugee status on simply the fact that he has deserted from what he freely chose without accepting the consequences of his choice!

"Ask a Shia or a Kurd what life was like when the Baath were in charge."

Is this what were using to measure success, a brutal occupation vs. a brutal dictatorship. Talk about lowering your
standards, even the comment is silly and shows a utter lack of historical facts. If the US was so concerned about
quality of life issues for the normal Iraqi why support Saddam all threw the 80's when he was at his worst. The US
changes dictators more than underpants, I suppose that the US was just supporting a democratic government while
selling arms to Chile also, how about El Salvador, I just hope one day the US does not decide to spread democracy into
Canada.

If your honest you will admit the US draft is mainly a poverty draft with education out of reach for so many. Blacks and Latin Americans and poor whites are well represented cannon fodder in the US military, not one US senator has a child in Iraq at this time and Bush and Cheney are draft dodgers but they didn't have to move to Nelson LOL .

The war is highly illegal by any standards and is a disgrace to the people of the US, just because the UN cannot enforce laws against the US does not make the War okay. Basically the whole mess is turning the entire world against the US and spurring movements for democratic change throughout the Americans, and it has made the world a more dangerous place as terrorism is way up around the globe. I admire these folks and welcome more , flood the courts with US draft dodgers and as Einstein put it , if one in 3 solders refused to serve the jails could not accommodate them.

Welcome and come up to Roberts Creek sometime and we will bring in the summer solstice with some nice BC budd.

I welcome the Key family too. I just hope our cowardly, spineless and treasonous government - one that disallowed Hintzman and allows the Yanqui fascists to persecute Marc Emery - will have the backbone to allow them refuge status.

Stuart I believe you are uninformed about the U.S.military. The military draft you speak of hasn't been in existence for over thrity years. If you wish to examine the years of the U.S.draft during the Vietnam War you will find that military personnal from minority groups were found in the military at a rate equal to their representation in the general populous. In combat roles they were preresented at levels below those in the general populous. I was very fortunate that the military was an option for a youngster from a poor situation. I was able to mature into a worthwhile young man while in the U.S.Navy, who learn about honor and duty and had my college education due to my service.
Your comment about U.S.Senators not having any children currently serving on active duty is misleading. Many of the Senators have served, some of them in combat. Some of their children have served. Because of the advanced age at which most senators are elected it is understandable as to why there aren't any senators with children currently serving. It is more likely that their grandchildren are serving.
Your take on the war in Iraq is without merit. Throughout the Clinton administration and with the support of senators Kerry,McCain,Schumer and Kennedy as well as the entire block of liberal U.S. senators it was believed that Iraq had very large stock of WMDs. Following the attacks of 9/11 and the continued belief of WMDs and Iraqi ties to terrorism the war was launched.
I believe that the necessity of the war has general acceptance with the exception of the radical,near communist socialist left.

Z, by general acceptance do you mean in America? What's the acceptance level say at the UN?

Bush: OK, so we'll invade Iraq and tell everyone what? Come on lets have some ideas here!
CIA: The old arms for drugs routine.
Cheney: The Truth!! (Loud Laughter!!!)
Secretary of Defense: Weapons of mass destruction. We can buy doctored UN reports down at surplus for next to nothing!
Cheney: (singing) "The next thing you know ole ****'s a billionaire...." Sung to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies....
Bush: Meeting is adjourned. Who wants to smoke some more crack!

Oh yeah? Where's your evidence? I would say that examples like the following reveal what is closer to the truth:

http://tinyurl.com/9zv35

Let's paraphrase:

Bush lied about WMDs and refused to listen to experts in the CIA and other government bodies when they negated various aspects of his arguments that such weapons existed and were being built.

"None of these claims was true. Bush and his appointees had ample reason for doubt. Indeed, as John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman of the New Republic pointed out, "Unbeknownst to the public, the administration faced equally serious opposition within its own intelligence agencies." The CIA, the State Department's intelligence bureau, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy, the Air Force and the International Atomic Energy Agency all disputed particular administration claims."

Which, of course, means that if Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons, no one is going to believe this administration that these countries represent anything of a threat.

The US Administration was completely out to lunch about what would be required to finish what it started:

"[The US Administration] failed to contemplate the possibility of sustained opposition -- the sort of resistance routinely engendered by foreign occupations -- with officials from the vice president on down dismissing the prospects of a violent insurgency. The administration deployed inadequate forces to suppress violent criminals and insurgents alike, neglected to secure sensitive sites after Saddam was overthrown, and provided too little body armor and too few armored vehicles to protect U.S. forces. Even now, two years later, the latter problem continues. The Boston Globe recently reported that Marines in western Iraq lack not only armored vehicles but also heavy machine guns and communications equipment."

So now the Americans look like incompetent buffoons who shouldn't be trusted with the lives of soldiers or citizens.

Next point:

The Iraqi War has made the US more unsafe than ever.

"...Jihadists are making their stand in Iraq only because U.S. forces are there. No former Baathist would think of flying to the United States to kill Americans, and most of the foreign fighters in Iraq could never make it to America, whatever their personal inclinations. Even worse, the Iraq conflict is creating terrorists -- and creating them faster than coalition forces so far have been able to kill them.

"Iraq has been turned into the central front of terrorism, preparing killers who may eventually find targets elsewhere around the world, including in America. The CIA warns that Iraq may prove to be more important than Afghanistan once was in training deadly militants. The CIA's National Intelligence Council reports: The "dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq" to other nations will create new threats in the form of mutations of the al-Qaida network. Jihadists already have begun returning to their home countries, including in Europe."

You censored Cheney's first name?

The author of this report was not a radical nor or a leftist, not a Communist nor a Socialist in any respect, not even a liberal-in-the-small-"l" sense of the word -- although all these things have become increasingly more attractive to Canadians as we watch our ugly neighbours to the south.

Here's the writer's byline:

Nope, no sympathy, no sympathy at all. After looking around the US Army and Marines websites, these people have more than ample opportunites to become 'Conscientious Objectors' at the start of their service. If they were to become CO's, then be sent off with a gun to shoot Iraqis, then that's a different story.

I'd be insulted if our Canadian government would even give them a second look. If this guy has only got some 50% on an aptitidue test anyways, he probably didn't look too hard into it in the first place.

Our refugee courts have already decided that the legality of the war in Iraq is not a deciding factor, and I (for once) support that. Look, the Mounties should track this family down, slap the cuffs on them, and drop them at the nearest border station. Screw 'em! They had a chance, they missed it! I'd like to renegotiate my mortgage, too, but tough luck!

Get them out of my country! NO ONE forced him into it, he made his choice, and I think he should go back and face the music. Well, tough luck, kid! GET OUT!

And here's another one, honey. From the New York Times, which nobody thinks is the last bastion of the Red Army's Fifth Column except for idiots who listen to Limbaugh and Coulter.

http://tinyurl.com/aqf3c

You should read what happened to that fellow's career when he told his bosses that Iraq had no ability to build nuclear arms.

I'm glad this fellow is alive and can spend time with his family.

Looking at his photo though, I get the suspicion that he is just a rather dopey guy, who has essentially failed in everything in his life except duping some poor woman into bearing his children.

He's looking for excuses to justify his failure as a soldier and a failure as a person. He seems to be stretching and even fabricating things in an attempt to justify his desertion. "They don't take people with kids", untrue. "joining a non deployable unit" that's idiotic. Plain and simple, this fellow is weak, he ran and he's trying to hide the fact from himself. He doesn't even have the pride or guts to be ashamed of himself.

I wonder what example he can give his children, what kind of weak, self absorbed, self justifying shirkers will he raise. He should turn himself in so at least his children may have time to develop a decent character while he is away in in prison.

As it is they can look to him and say "My dad, A nice man, slope shouldered, shirking, sloppy, weak." What a thing to look up to.

Let's send backpacker2 to Iraq instead. It's obvious that the garbage on the US Military Recruitment website is a lie.

Yup the Rightwing nutballs have come baying for blood here.

All those "Shirking, sloppy, weak, slope-shouldered" people who headed up to our region during the last stupid American War, have made great contributions. We even elect them to the legislature.

I'm speaking of the poverty draft...

some facts to ponder.

"As a result, the highest number of recruits come from the poorest communities. For example, according to the American Friends Service Committee, “Puerto Rico is the Army’s number one recruiting territory. With an unemployment rate on the island of more than 40 percent, Army recruiting offices in Puerto Rico garner more than 4 times the number of recruits US based recruiting offices average on a yearly basis.” Blacks are also recruited disproportionately: 29.8 percent of those serving in the first Gulf War were black versus about 12 percent of the US population.

But with over 1,400 US troops killed and over 10,000 wounded in a pointless war — and more getting killed almost every day — the poverty draft is getting less and less effective. For the first time in 10 years, the Marines Corps, which has taken heavy casualties in Iraq, missed its monthly recruiting goal for January. "

Golly Te, you are angry.

I'm sure its due to the vast injustice of the world. You just care too much, dont you?. It creates a rage within you that boils up with a frenzy of typing and bile.

Cheer up. I bay for no blood. You can't save the world with hate in your heart.

Rahrichie, Interesting character assasination from looking at a picture! By what you wrote I see an angry, uneducated person, who hasn't learned you can't judge a book by it's cover. Of course just because you can read and write doesn't mean you are educated. I don't mean to compare you to "trailer trash" but just to put things in perspective. We get he made the wrong choice, but is that worth 10 years in Leavenworth?

LOL, no matter what Rahrichie and other right wing rednecks feel or have to say they are in the vast minority
compared to most Canadians, 86% of Canadians did not support the US attack on Iraq, hence our governments non support of the war. Unless you live in Alberta( inbreeding capital) your welcome, in fact Nelson is celebrating the Vietnam war deserters next year, Most of the countries of the world are with you , and we welcome you.

"As it stands I would not support him being given refugee status on simply the fact that he has deserted from what he freely chose without accepting the consequences of his choice!"

I wonder if when he choose to sign up, the application stated he must play soccer with heads of Iraq's or loot homes, commit torture etc. Sorry the US military is propped up in the US like say the church, your a patriot etc, once folks see how brutal and savage it is they have a right to break the contract. Are you saying once you sing up you should stick it out no matter what unspeakable crimes are committed. I bet allot of Nazi see your point of view. I wonder is the Nazi felt guilt for their actions or if they were just doing or fulfilling their contract.

I for one encourage war deserters to make Canada home and beg folks like Rahrichie and backpacker to go join the land of the proud.Redneck refugees from Canada , progressive repression, LOL

Oh I don't know Clubo, I've been around the scholastic block a few times.

HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME BY ONE POSTING!!. Just kidding.

Feel free to judge me. Just as I feel free to judge Mr. Key. Of course its not just his picture, but what he's done. It's a combination.

I think desertion during a war should be worth at least 5 years in Leavenworth.

And Clubo, just because you can be insulting doesn't mean your clever.

I like this site. Have a good night.

No one could epitomize hatred more than the present US Administrators and its apologists, who wantonly murdered 150,000 Iraqi people. Any westerner with the slightest sign of a pulse is heartily ashamed and sickened by them. Anger has nothing to do with it anymore. Just that cool sort of pity one experiences when watching a criminal person babbling to justify why they murder, rape, maim, steal and destroy, as if they could.

I know dozens of places where others like Keys abide quite safely and securely. He is making a public stand.

A country like the States, which behaves lawlessly, should not be surprised when its citizens no longer respect its laws or its leadership.

Welcome.

All I can see from looking at the picture is the kids. Growing up in the Kootenays, there were a ton of friends who's fathers came from the US. While Fox news brands them all draft dodgers, they were a mix of draft dodgers, veterans, and other cultural exiles. We didn't know the politics. We were kids.

While those immigrants might have been called hippies, all I can attest to is that their children - my friends - are among the best and brightest and wonderful people I know. Some are now doctors, some are working in the woods, and all are proud Canadians. We got the best of a generation and all I can say from the bottom of my heart is welcome.

As for poverty draft--I'd be interested in your statistics of percentages of poor and minorities who serve in combat arms units. It is at best, proportional. This is not to denigrate anyone's service, but just to point out that this is not a minority meat grinder

Many of us serve because we feel that its right, not because we got laid off last month. Most of us truly hate combat. I have no problem with young deserters going to Canada. Now he's your problem.

I happen to know quite a few who served with other options, to include the child of a senior judicial official!

But . . many peace-loving countries like Canada and the Netherlands cannot fathom that others act badly for the reason of acting badly. Sadly, the Serb butchers at Srebrenica didn't seem too keen on "dialogue" or "non-violent mediation". For whatever reason in the Middle East, many see violence as meeting their goals and firmly within their interests. Sorry Kofi!!! What is true is that in Iraq, murder as government is a way of life. The majority, who has not had a chance to rule, will get the chance. If you want Switzerland right away, well, perhaps you need to read some history. It wasn't a direct line in France from the Bastille to the 35 hour work week.

Any civilian death is a true tragedy, and those of us who lived and worked with Iraqis every day feel it as much as anyone. But please, 150000 murdered--even Iraq Body Count won't go that high. Its not to say that there haven't been too many civilian deaths, but that the anti war argument (which in many ways I share) is weakened by Michael-Moore style name calling and insults. There is a more principled way to argue more effectively.

As a father ,I am so glad a person with some genuine values, rather than imperious, spittle-flecked, vitriolic rhetoric, has chosen to point out what's obvious here. Merci beaucoup cosmo. This is a family we're talking about. Six people. Should this husband and father be applauded for his choice to abstain/desert the US military? Or vilified as a weak coward, who knew what he was getting into.. (etc etc and so on and so forth and more of the same)? I'm definitely with the former, and would be happy to see this FAMILY be granted refugee status. As for the BushCo Pirate Adventure apologists, I would gladly send all of 'em down to the seething mass of maggotry south of the forty-ninth in the Key family' stead.

No, tarheel. We don't believe anything the US says anymore. Since the country has elected pathological liars to its highest office, there is nothing that comes out of its media or its representatives that is credible. We don't believe you when you say that the Middle East was ever a threat---except to the American's supply of oil.

Being compared to Michael Moore is a good thing. His insults have a way of connecting with their targets in the most effective fashion. And they end up being the truth, as we can all remember from that touching little portrait of GW holding hands with King Faud.

As much as I enjoy this site, it just seems unfortunate that people cannot disconnect political processes with the general population. I guess I'll have to fall back on my original preconception of Canadians as the MacKenzie Brothers, eh?

Calling American Maggots? Wow, that's almost Socratic! 6th Form Rhetoric must have been your best subject! You would think 98% of Americans had voted for President Bush. Good to know you have a long term outlook when someone else takes over.

That blood for oil plan is working well, isnt it? Of course, that it might have made more sense for a bunch of oilmen to restrict the supply of oil, and hence make more money, is rarely considered.

Until then, I suppose I'll have to start hiking around Old Europe with my American flag, so that when Frenchmen ask why, I can tell them I don't want people thinking I'm Canadian!

(By the way, I hope this will finally be Toronto's year for the NHL!)

It sounds like the same person working off slightly different IP connections --- probably out of the Sun or Province Offices. Yes, indeed, we know they love our site so much that they continue to post Republican Talking Points here, and marvel that no one is buying it. Just like nobody is buying their papers. Maybe because it sounds like it was all cranked out of the same place.

Of course, Canadians find people who impugn Michael Moore to be rather on the slow thinking, propaganda eating side. As we do of people who don't see the connection between American automakers and Blood-for-oil. Since they've drawn that huge target sign on their buttocks in indelible ink, Americans should use their own flag when they travel, instead of continuing to hide behind ours.

The whining about being chased off this site is always a bit rich. Wait five minutes, he'll be back.

commentor: Te Aro Arahina

posted: 4 Hours Ago

When your supreme court is stacked with activist judges, when your military is blatently engaged in atrocity which it barely even bothers to cover-up, when your president is a bald-faced liar and murderer, then you shouldn't have to prove anything to stay in my country.

Te Aro Arahina,

When did you come back from Iraq where you viewed all these atrocities? Let me tell you about atrocities...how about the targeting of civilians by the insurgents...how about kids being targeted with car bombs...did you see any of that when you were over there? Nope...didn't think so. I did...repeatedly. All I know is that these are bad people, and if we knuckle under then they will never stop coming...Canada has not tasted it yet...but one day they might..then what...will Key join the Canadian Army to defend it (maybe they have non-deployable engineer units).

You can have the deserter, let him mooch off your welfare system. It is absolutely absurd that he thought that he would sit in America and draw a paycheck while the rest of the Army did their job.

Send me to Iraq? Sure, sure. Whatever you're spouting doesn't change the fact that the man had a chance to get out of it at the beginning.

Besides, he doesn't sound like the kind of immigrant we'd want anyways. He skipped out on a legally-binding contract and should now be punished.

I stand by my original comments. Let's slap the cuffs on him and drop him at the nearest border station.

http://tinyurl.com/9smsb

Here's another sign that you're dealing with slow-witted Republicans, Conservatives or provincial-Liberals. You post articles written by their own party members with evidence provided by their own CIA to substantiate it, and they just ignore it. Blind in one eye, and can't see out the other. Not to mention so slow they couldn't pour urine out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

Obviously, as the World Tribunal indicates, not everyone on this planet is as dim.

Here's another great article:

Amnesty International Calls for Prosecutions of U.S. Officials
9 Jun 2005

Joshua Rubenstein interviewed by Scott Harris
Between The Lines

June 09, 2005

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=75

"In a severe condemnation of U.S. conduct in its war against terrorism, Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan charged that the Bush administration had abdicated its responsibility to set a global example in upholding human rights. Speaking at a May 25th news conference in London unveiling the group's annual human rights report, Khan said, the American-run prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba "has become the gulag of our time."

"Amnesty International is calling for the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility, which currently holds some 540 prisoners from 40 nations -- many detained without charge, and some held more than three years. Over the past year, investigations by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the FBI have documented cases of abuse and torture at the hands of U.S. personnel at Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"William Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, called on foreign governments to investigate and prosecute all senior U.S. officials who have violated the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Among those he named were President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.

... continues/

Amnesty International USA: (212) 807-8400
Website: http://www.amnestyusa.org

Anne-Marie Slaughter, during her Presidential address to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law on Thursday, April 3, 2003, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C., estimated that eight out of ten international lawyers have concluded the invasion of Iraq was unlawful. Many indicators support her estimate. Many international lawyers would have been influenced by Secretary General Kofi Annan’s statement ten days before the invasion that force in Iraq without Security Council authorization would violate the Charter. Patrick E. Tyler & Felicity Barringer, Annan Says U.S. Will Violate Charter if It Acts Without Approval, NY Times, Mar. 11, 2003, at A8.

Haha. . .speaking only for myself, I'm too independent to be affiliated with any of those groups. However, I have been known to read the Nation too, so maybe I deserve the title.

Congratulations on your big meeting! When I see the outflow of members to Baghdad to help build a new society in Iraq, I'll know your serious. Must give a lot of satisfaction to prove you are right at a conference of like minded people, and then issue a very brave position paper.

However, I know its dangerous with the US Army parking car bombs outside the Red Cross and killing relief workers with the cameras running. Oh wait. . .that was the "brave" and "patriotic" Iraqi "resistance".

Ruin of Daily Life
25 JUNE 2005

Testimony by Iraqi Witness, Eman Khammas

As my sister Haifa told me, I have to talk about daily life in Iraq under occupation but I feel compelled to talk about something more important than the power cuts, the lack of water and the contamination of the environment. I will be talking about certain cities under embargo and cities being bombed, such as Khaim and Fallujah. Even now Falluja is under the same embargo and it is probably going through a worse process than it did before.

Since November 2004 it has been under constant bombardment. These cities are characterised as cities of resistance. Some people call these cities the Sunni triangle. In these cities there is an intense violation of human rights; they go in people’s houses with the excuse that they are looking for terrorists.

.../continued

Dr. Hamdi Al Allusy, the Director of the hospital of the city of Khaim said on TV, “I am pleading to humanity, to NGOs, to everyone: Let the American forces allow ambulances to pass through to the hospitals so that we can look after the injured. Dr Al Allusy also pleaded to American and British forces to stop the operations in Khaim.”

When the U.S. imposes an embargo on a city, or when it encircles a city, the routes are blocked and any vehicle which approaches the city is shot at, without discrimination as to who is in the car - women, children, all will be killed. I personally witnessed the result of this in the hospital of Hadissa.

Yusuf and Fouad worked for a store selling construction materials. They were coming towards Hadissa when they were shot at, one in the head and the other in the chest. I have seen their photographs. They were both married and had children. This is one of many examples for tens of cities under siege. These bombings sometimes last for weeks until American forces decide that they can go into a city without being shot at.

I must tell you that in these so called “cities of resistance”, there are in fact no camps filled with resistors; there are no fortifications. These cities are constantly bombed. Houses are blown up with people inside. Unfortunately, crowded families living in these houses bear the brunt of all this. When a hospital or a government office is bombed, people are left under the rubble for days until they die because no one will or can save them.

The American forces occupy the buildings, mostly private houses, where they imprison the whole family. They put them in one of the rooms, using the rest of the house as their quarters, as a temporary military station. Then they go around the neighbourhood firing at people. I can understand why a soldier would shoot at a young person; he may feel threatened. But why would anyone point a gun at a 65 year-old woman? There are such examples, which are difficult to explain to you, such as American troops shooting a 3 year-old baby in the head. Women sitting in their houses are fired at.

A vehicle carrying a young wounded boy with his mother was shot at. Having spoken to these people, this is a testimony from a witness: after the shooting, the young man jumped out of the car and was shot at. He was told to creep and then was shot again. I can tell you about dozens of these examples.

Snipers hunt people in the streets. People attempting to go to health centers are shot at.

There are many crippled children. There are thousands of widows and orphans. There are no police for security and there are no courts. Even hospitals are occupied and bombed and burned. In Falluja and in Khaim American troops intentionally burnt down the hospitals.

Troops go into a house and send the women outside. Then they bomb the house with the Iraqi men inside. Having done that they say, “well, we were misinformed”. I talked to someone whose house was demolished. She said, “it was not my window but my whole house that was demolished. Even the van I had was destroyed.” When they pay them indemnity, the amount is ridiculous.

People have to go to American authorities and all the documents they have are taken from their hands. I have not heard a single case where a lawyer is able to receive appropriate damages. They change the facts, destroy the documents, and won’t pay the damages.

We don’t know what happened to tens of thousands of people whose families are looking for them in prisons, applying to the ministry of human rights, giving petitions to Iraqi government. There are children looking for their parents; fathers looking for their sons. I am pleading to you all, pleading to all organisations working on human rights, to the UN: something must be done. We need to know what happened to these people: are they dead or are they alive?

There are some wonderful accounts of what the British and American special ops did in Iraq prior to the war too. All the way back since just after the first World War.

Is it any wonder that they are becoming the lest admired nations in the world? Even by their traditional allies?

I think Joshua Key's testimony about his fellow soldiers using the heads of Iraqi civilians as footballs speaks volumes about the type of people supporting this conflict.

Not only that, but they are actually laughing about it.

I think young Key took the soccer ball story from a tale (who knows if its true) of Palestinians doing the same to an Israeli soldier. Would be an interesting google search.

Connecting the gulag to Guantanamo is sort of sick--and is evident of someone who has really never lived in a closed socity. If things are wrong at the prison, lets get them fixed, prosecute wrongdoers, etc. But 540 people in a jail cannot compare in intent or scale to the monstrosity in Russia. If this is the gulag of our times, times are better. But I guess it keeps the donations rolling in. . .

hacusa.org/NoticedInThePress/2005/Bien_WP_062005.doc

lexander Solzhenitsyn describes Stalinist forced labour as essentially a mechanism of genocide. In this respect, it bears comparison with the death-camp system established under the Nazis (see below). It also contrasts with other murderous corv�e institutions, in which the deaths of the labourers may have been viewed as incidental or inevitable, but in which the corv�e was not itself conceptualized as a means of deliberately bringing about mass death and the destruction of a targeted group. For Solzhenitsyn, the explanation for the building of the Belomar (White Sea) Canal between 1931 and 1933, the first of the great forced-labour projects, reflected the fact that "Stalin simply needed a great construction project somewhere which would devour many working hands and many lives (the surplus of people as a result of the liquidation of the kulaks [wealthier peasantry]), with the reliability of a gas execution van but more cheaply, and which would at the same time leave a great monument to his reign of the same general sort as the pyramids." (Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, Vol. II [New York: Harper & Row, 1975], p. 86.) He estimates that 100,000 workers, perhaps more, died during only the first winter of work on the Canal (p. 98).

Rahritchie, when I look at this photo I see an unpretentious guy with a wide genuine smile and a wife who smiles the same sweet way... four cute kids, (one of them patiently waiting for the photo session to be over) :-)

...and all of their worldly goods packed in a Dodge "Caravan" which is aptly living up to its name.

The Key children are learning one of life's most important lessons from their parents... to take the often difficult stand that a courageous decision demands... and then to go on to change your life and live it in a new way.

So welcome to Canada (while we can still call it ours)...I think you're a great addition to this country.

The Iraqi War hasn't even finished it's second year, and the deathtoll climbing up to 150,000 civilians, sounds like it's pretty much on par with Stalin. That was only 100,000 people.

Stalin and Bush are certainly cut out of the same cloth. Stalin even wanted to be a priest ...

clubofrome, I just noticed your comment about Cheney's first name, which reads on this site as ****. That's hilarious!--- and how inadvertantly appropriate, too.

tarheel, I'm more inclined to believe what Keys has to say than anything that comes out of the mainstream American press. Man, what happened to your reporters in the long years since Watergate?

Oh right! They went through your education system. I was having a Tucker Carlson moment.

Military buffs. That's the polite name I am going to use when I refer to this new group of Bush apologist who are quite willing to forget their leader LIED about the reasons for entering Iraq.

The brownshirts would overwhelm the messengers of the day in the run-up and start of war by Germany.

There are several on here who write like PR people, offering that soft, I've got experience and 'I am moderate' line, all the while trying to subtly justify a clearly illegal invasion of an independent nation.

"Ask the Shia, ask the Kurds."

No, but I'd certainly like to ask some of Haliburton's top people a few questions in a public setting, say a world court.

And I would like to ask some of the thousands of abused prisoners in US custody about events so bad that the US administration will not release photos or video footage of many of those photo shoots.

Maybe zed goldman can assure us the photos and videos are all fakes with former Saddam Insane doubles acting as both US military and Iraqi prisoner in the flix.

Tarheelgermany could perhaps refresh us Canadians on how popular the US/British invasion is across present day Europe. I mean the Europe offbase from where you are stationed T.

Rahrichie, I keep getting this weird image of him flashing before my eyes and it sure ain't pretty.

delta24t, you seem a bit high stung to be holding anything considered a potential weapon.

Reading between your lines, I suspect you live south of Canada so I would suggest you get back into your uniform if you have been there already and go and help GW find those WMD.

delta', before you worry too much for Canada's safety in the world, please go and read the history of relations between your country and Canada all the way back to the war of 1812-14.

There have been many invasions and or incursions into Canada by American troops and in some cases, such as the Fenian raids, wild mobs of fanatics bent on giving us democracy or freedom or whatever the euphemism of the day was back then when it was time to wrap the big diplomatic stick in friendly colours.

No other country has ever bothered us, so I'm not worried about your "bad people" who will "never stop coming."

(Kia Ora, Allan. You mean, except for those British and French colonists and their armies, right? I guess it depends on what you mean by no other country. Since my father's ancestors went through a similar thing back in their homeland, I have a different perspective than you on this.)

Someone was commenting earlier about how they fantasize that the military is comprised of people in proportion to their share of the population, i.e. there are no more minorities in the military than in civilian population. That is very interesting to have that point of view, but wrong.

Let's look at another appalling thing the U.S. military is doing, using mercenaries. Has anyone noted how many non-American citizens have been killed fighting as members of our army and marines? When I started looking at the pictures of all of the soldiers killed in Iraq, I was shocked at the number who were not even citizens!!!

For those complaining about Key joining up, knowing what could happen to him, well maybe that is true. It is equally as possible that recruiters lied to him to get him to join. Has everyone forgotten that the recruiters had to take a day off recently to be told not to lie so much?

And as for the suggestion that only far left socialists disagree about the war, maybe you should pay a bit more attention to what the polls are saying these days. The most recent ones I have seen say 1) The war was not worth fighting, we shouldn't have done it, and 2) Bush lied to get us into the war we shouldn't have fought. I think someone watches way too much Fox news for nazis!!!

Amnesty compared the Gulag to Guantanamo. Thus, 540 people in one prison--many of whom could be (and probably should be) called POWs--is the moral equal of a system that deliberately killed who knows how many million people. 100,000--by the way--was the number killed to make one useless canal. But that's just history and fact--its more fun to focus on the War of 1812.

If the "Gulag" is the Iraqi prison system, then lets get some facts. But that's not what was said by the good woman at Amnesty. Why can't her statement stand on the merits? Sad to say, there's a lot of business these days for the Iraqi prison system. I'm sure the police would prefer to hand out speeding tickets, and not be blown up on the roads.

Hmm. . .I'm still not sure where you get 150,000 dead. Two months ago it was 100,000. But as Stalin would note. . .its just statistics.

If the Shia rebelled again, as in 1991, and 30,000 people were killed by the Baathists-would it be seen as, at worst, a value-neutral event? I should hope not. . .

I don't think having military experience is any particular importance to a political question. However, many of the things the young man said are flatly untrue, or reflect "urban legend" material of other situations. But since he is saying what is wanted to be heard, he's a "good guy". Is that any different than the "brownshirt" tactics you accuse the other side of?

Frankly, I voted for Kerry, I live in firm Blue State territory, and I have a European living in my home very near and dear to me. I have problems with the changing reasons for the war, and I have problems with Halliburton profits. Does that make me a moderate? sure! I'm just not sure how in this situation, there is going to be any bloodless change--and in nearly any case it would be an equally bad . I'm sure I know enough about Iraqi history to say that that's the way it is. We were just the people who took the lid off that hell.

I'm not particularly concerned about European or Canadian opinion. Europe's day in the sun will come, when an AQ suicide bomb or airplane bomb (which have been broken up in the past by French Intelligence) goes off in Paris (not an occupier of the Holy Places, or a supporter of Israel) , and then this same group of people can wring their hands about whether or not it was right to forbid Muslim girls from wearing headscarves, or to have Algeria as a colony, or blah blah blah. What then? Negative answers not accepted.

It is true that minorities overall in the military are in numbers greater than their percentage to the population.

But in combat arms units, the number of minorities are lower. This suggests nothing other than that the group of people facing most of the fighting is approximately mirroring to the population as a whole.

Tarheel; Thanks for offering a perspective other than the cliche-ridden diatribes of the typical canuck lefty living on this site. Unfortunately as soon as you disagree with anything they say you are immediately subjected to sarcasm and insults. It's important to know that not all Canadians are as nasty towards our American cousins as this fringe.

Te Aro Arahino, thank you for the other view.

Of course the French and British invaded this region of the world even though it was being used quite well by others at the time.

I guess I'm guilty of seeing this from a Canadian perspective rather than a truly historic situation.

It's embarrassing in that I know better, yet still fall into the European view six generations after my genes arriving.

I might also note there has been a least one invasion, in relatively recent times, by Inuit of what today is part of Canada.

Perhaps I should have referred to it as an invasion of people armed with guns.

I appreciate that you have compared the situations through your (or your father's) own experience and see the common threads that link us all.

There are really very few differences despite the various hues and accents that spice our species.

Kerry was for the war, which doesn't make him much of a liberal by Canadian standards. Would he have been much of an improvement over the incumbent? Only because Bush comes across like a totalitarian plutocrat. Even your most liberal New England States are more conservative than our most conservative province.

Could it be more insulting to insist that Canadians think the suicide bombers and terrorists are all fine and dandy as long as they're bombing other people, and that it would only take a similar outrage here to "see the error of our ways"? We already know that Americans have little knowledge of cultures outside their borders, but it is still bewildering to see how ignorant they are. In fact, it's hard to take anything they say at face value. Is this a bonafide case of they just haven't got a clue? Or are they doing another manipulative avoidance of the truth thing?

Here's some facts about Canada: Canadians suffered huge casualties upon entering WWII long before anyone attacked us, just to support our allies. We sent battalions to Korea for a fight which had nothing to do with us. We put our troops on the line in Cypress, Bosnia and Afghanistan. We've had our share of military abuses that left us filled with shame (Somalia), and military neglect that affected the same way (Rwanda, the Sudan). For a relatively small population with a substantially smaller economic base, we do our share of fighting on behalf of the United Nations.A nd many countries benefit from our foreign aid, not just Israel.

We also have a practice of staying out of most ill-conceived wars, which is why we didn't run off to Vietnam or the Falklands. The War in Iraq is not a War ON Terrorism. It's a War FOR Terrorism. That's why we're not there.

Mr Key is attempting to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. If he was motivated by principle, rather than self interest, he would stay in the USA and accept the consequences of his decision there. ( Aside read http://www.harpers.org/AWOLInAmerica.html)

But he decided to run away instead. I hope that Canada wil stay the course that it has set with Mr.Hinzman and refuse him refugee status.

Cheers, allan. I'm Canadian born and bred, but no matter where I live, I will always be accepted by my father's people. The issue of invasion has a particularly poignant resonance for me. Especially when I hear the apologists declaring that their killers come in peace, bearing the gift of a superior culture. It's just too ironic!

I realize that Mr. Key went to Canada so that he could remain with his family. But the result of his actions means that he is now evading the U.S. military instead of confronting them. He can run for the next 5 years or more or merely report for punishment; accept their prison sentence and then talk about the illegality of the war. Tell the world what America is doing in the name of freedom; the people who are killed, the abuses, the lies and tell the world that 5 years is a small price to pay to have the truth be known.

What America desperately needs is for all Americans to object to the continued U.S. involvement in illegal wars, such as the one in Iraq. All U.S. military personnel should stand down and refuse to take part in further illegal activity. They cannot put all of them in the brig.

The historic debate that somehow has gone over far too many heads is the international law debate. While many South of the line have been programmed to be cynical of the UN, the fact is that a historic consensus was building at the close of the milenium. Had the US wholeheartedly and without self-interest supported this movement, we would all be safer.

I can't shake the memory of the day the Taliban offered to give Usama Bin Laden to a third party for international trial if the US backed off. Bin Landen would be tried as an international criminal (which he is), and Saddam Houssein would be on notice that the world was ready to prosecute jus cogens international abuses. I.E. if Saddam gassed the Kurds under the emerging enforceable order, he would face a unified global system coming after him. But, of course, the US refused, Bin Laden remains, and the rest is the same old primitive history.

Finally, within that historic debate, those American Servicemen who refuse service are doing an important and ethically justifiable (and commendable) thing.

Warning: Language may offend.

Paraphrased from a U.S. talk show moderator last night:

He and serveral of his executives are "confirmed liars".

Why should Americans go to die in Iraq in a war that is against international law?

The dysfunctional **** crime family is involved there to fatten its wallet. (You fill in the name)

He does not send his own daughters but would send your sons and daughters.

Name clue: Think of a shrub.

As an American citizen deeply disturbed by the U.S. illegal invasion and violent occupation of Iraq, I urge Canadians to pressure your government officials to allow American servicemen who want to escape involvement in war crimes to settle in Canada. During the disastrous U.S. invasion of Vietnam, Canada showed exemplary principles by allowing young American men a safe haven.

Please support American troops by allowing them the same ethical options now. Please give them refugee status in Canada. We know now that the Iraq invasion was in the works from the earliest days of the Bush Administration. We know now that everything the Bush Administration presented as a rationale for an invasion was a manipulation of facts or a complete fabrication. The invasion is illegal under international law and under the prinicples established primarily by American jurisprudence at Nuremberg. Under Nuremberg law an illegal invasion is the paramount war crime and all acts of harm following an illegal war are also war crimes. By those explicit principles, American troops in Iraq are being forced to commit war crimes and it is their duty to refuse to participate in such acts.

American servicemen who refuse to follow orders and instead choose to seek protection in Canada are doing the right thing both ethically and legally. Please help them.

Warm up the bus. There is room for Joshua on the same bus as Mark and his buddies for a scenic drive to the courthouse in Seattle.
Good riddens to this rubbish.

Rah, My original intent was not to insult you but I can see how it could go either way! Actually you are wrong about judging. You may have an opinion about this story, but to attack the man because of his picture and a few of his words.... then I guess that makes what you said stupid. Not stupid in a bad way, but stupid in an ignorant, not really your fault way. I suppose I jumped to conclusions thinking you were uneducated or juvenile because children may point and laugh especially if they didn't have much love at home. That would be jumping too far I think. So lets just stick with what you said was stupid. Based on the premise that a mature, tolerant person would not attack a man's character because of his picture. Or perhaps you would like to go on record as standing by your words? Then we would know that Rahrichie posts are to be ignored, like Ron Erwins. Surely you can see the difference between rational thought and Ron Erwin?

Te Aro; I think you added 150K to the number of Iraq citizens "murdered" by American troops. They did not murder anyone. However 15,000 have died during this necessary, just liberation.
Democracy trumps your vision and always will unless your dark muslim world rules.
Don't hold your breath , there are plenty of people like me to make sur that doesn't happen.
I kmow you appreciate that.

Okay tarheelgermany lets find some common ground , I have friends and family in the states and know how hard
it can be when war starts. People have the tendency to wrap themselves in the flag and treat all dissent like acts
of treason. It is actually quite sad how quickly people lose themselves is the good vs. evil view perpetrated by
the US media. I just watched and recommend the following movie..

Enron the smartest guys in the room , the levels of corruption is obscene and it is not just Enron, its major US banks and Canadian banks , major respected accounting firms( Arthur Anderson) They were all in it together.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808626884&cf=info

The entire system is broken and corrupt no matter what party you choose, ( Kerry was basically a disgrace )
The largest Canadian and US Corporations, the media, the banks, their all broken and have one objective, to make
money and lots of it.

Did you remember the rolling black outs in CA, it was Enron turning off and on the tap and then reselling the power once demand was at a peak.

This whole thing did not get as much attention as it should off in the media because of Sep 11 happened at the time things
were falling apart at Enron . The entire system is corrupt , right down to the core.

So Why I am telling you this.
1) The MSM is the one giving us information and reports on the War, their embedded and lack all credibility.
2) US troops and innocents are dying for no reason except to secure contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel/
(go do online searches, Halliburton and others are getting huge contracts that are untendered)
3) Iraq was basically a 3rd world nation crippled by sanctions, The entire planet , even millions of US citizens think that Iraq
is harmless, to think Iraq is a threat to US power is laughable,
4) Support for the US is at an all time low , even among allies,
If your honest you will admit that the US military is usually made up of the lower classes in America and not the
children of the wealthy. Kids are dying for the elites that think they have the god given right to run this planet.
While the troops were being deployed the Senate was passing bills to gut veterans benefits and health care.
We must wake up and focus on why things are the way they are. Stop fighting each other.

We welcome all US deserters until the US leaders stop acting in their own best interest.

Hold on there, Stuart! Who exactly are you talking about when you say 'We welcome all US deserters etc...'?

We don't ALL welcome them! If there was a draft, on the other hand, sure, bring them in and we'll take care of them.

But listen, even if Mr Key was to apply through the normal channels to become a landed immigrant, it doesn't seem like he's got the smarts to pass anyways. I mean, only 50% on an Army aptitude test? Besides, what did he expect? He's in the Army, he IS a number! He IS expendable!

Tough luck, kid! Out you get!

Of course US leaders are acting in their own self interest. That's their job and duty.
I liken the world to that of a family. US is the father who has to be tough to protect his family. Don't kill daddy unless you are trying to commit suicide.
Do you think the European Union is going to protect us ? Who else is up to the job. The job has to be done. Sorry for interupting your toke.

Hello

A friend of mine works at a production company that is about to put out a doc partly on the growing differences between Canada and the US and the plight of the AWOL soldiers.

He told me that most of the soldiers went into this thinking that they were fighting for a good course – to protect their country. I think if they were actually there doing just that, and disarming weapons, that there would be less deserters. However, this is obviously not the case. A lot of the AWOL soldiers in Canada have been in combat. They saw first hand what was going on, and decided it was wrong. I don’t think they should be punished for standing up and saying no.

Oh! The trailer for the movie is at: http://www.trailervision.com/trailer.php?id=158&PHPSESSID=c340da646e62947497dc3ac062412fdc

Ok Club;

To judge a person just by his picture is wrong. But his actions and narrative (which I think is self serving and somewhat fabricated) combined with the photo, lead me to think the man is a schlub.

Sometimes you have to make a judgement. This log is full of judgements (Americans are Maggots, As bad as Nazis, as bad as Stalin)Me judging Mr Key as a dufus is one of the milder ones.

Lynn, I don't see a guy who's staring a new life, I see a guy who screwed up his life and is dragging his wife and kids along for a sad ride in the woods. If the fellow can't even see through a recruiters sales pitch (so he sahys), how is he going teach his kids to make there way in this terrible world full of Republicans and Judgemental Rahrichies?

To the people who say the US invaded an innocent sovereign country, I have two words, Saddam Hussein, good gravy Miss Daisy, the world would be better with him in power? He would have gotten some nasty weapons at some point, even though he didnt have any we the US invaded.

As for Bush Lying about WMDs. He didn't lie, he was wrong. Even the French thought Saddam had WMDs if you recall. Sure, the Iraq war is a horrible mess, a huge screw up,that they are trying to justify with ever changing reasons, Innocent people are dying, but to say its a big evil american plot is a bit much, its simple incompentence.

When stupid people do evil things, how do you define them? Are the stupid or are the evil? I say they are stupid. Like Mr. Key.

Just in
" Fourteen U.S. marines died in western Iraq on Wednesday when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb, the U.S. military said.

INDEPTH: Iraq

A civilian interpreter also died in the explosion and another marine was wounded.

The attack happened just outside Haditha, 225 kilometres northwest of the capital.

It was one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. troops since they invaded Iraq in 2003, and it came just two days after seven other marines died in attacks in the same area.

On Monday, six soldiers died near Haditha, and a seventh was killed in a suicide bombing in Hit, located to the southeast.

I don't think there is anything stupid about GWB. I think his intentions are crystal clear, and they are evil. I used to think that what the government did in the name of security was their business and not for public consumption. Now I see the error of my ways. I'm no longer 13, like Ron Erwin, and I've lived now for a half century. (almost) The big picture for me has unfolded. The US is going to try and hold on to it's own way of life right to the bitter end. There is no "big" conspiracy, it is all quite obvious. To me. The rest is tactical diversion. The biggest lie could very well be the truth. It's all pointing towards an exciting and suspenseful climax! In full 3D technicolor! All of these issues are pointless when your life support system is being yanked from under you. This is why I can no longer tolerate the personal or state collection of wealth for the sake of collecting wealth. We should be focusing on our survival on this planet. Silly humans thinking what they do is important or matters.
Please listen....for the last time. There is no Star Wars evil empire or Klingon nation that we have to conquor. Any other life experiments that exist in this universe, don't become successful by going to war and beating each other with sticks. That's science fiction. Reality check time.

"Of course US leaders are acting in their own self interest. That's their job and duty."

Hey Ron , your even starting to sound like Bush, while your being funny take a second to read my last post.

Club; Do you leave your doors unlocked as well ? You sure are a trusting individual, or maybe dillusional.
It's in our interest for the USA to hold on to it's own way of life. Someday we may even catch up to their standard of living and ethics.

"

," offers Rahrichie in another show of weaselness.

So Mr. Kay is an a-hole who screwed up and ought to just surrender and accept his punishment and fate because he is also an incompetent who managed to only score 50 per cent on military tests.

Yet your government leaders, while they might have made a minor error or two, were really looking out for everyone and even if their first excuse was clearly wrong, they ought to be forgiven because you just know that the Iraqis would have someday acquired those WMD.

First, Rahrichie, are you a futurist, a clairvoyant or do you peer into you tea cup and come up with these gems?

More than 100,000 innocent Iraqis are dead, Americans and Iraqis have lost billions in oil revenues and tax dollars while friends of those just "stupid" people in the Whitehouse are, surprise, surprise, earning Billions in profits.

Nothing evil there, you say. Oh right, it's all just a bunch of dumb Texas yahoos with good intentions but who are so quick they outrace history.

Rahrichie, if you are an American you ought to be ashamed of yourself for letting young Americans die and be injured for life to prop up either dumb bastards or dirty thieves.

If you have an ounce of humanity within your body you would realize we all see you as the much the same as the American perpetrators of this invasion and slaughter.

They are mnurdering people and lying to your public and the world. You are aiding and abetting their crimes.
Frankly, I'd prefer to live beside Mr Kay with all his naivety and faults than someone with your qualities.

In all honesty , who would attack the US . Who would attack an enemy who could nuke the planet
20 times over. The metro police in NY have more fire power then the entire Iraqi guard. Saddam is a bad
man and former ally, supported by the US when he was at his worst. It was the US that helped , finance and
give him to the Iraqi people, he was not voted in. And now you justify the death of US soldiers , and 1000's of innocent Iraqi's
to remove this lame duck that has been under sanctions for 10 yrs. Anyone with an once of humanity (excluding Ron Irwin) can see this is not about Iraq but about US corporations and elitist America. Halliburton is not exactly the beacon of democracy.

Earth to Ron, I'll suffer through life up here in the great big white without the benefit of American ethics (almost rhymes with Enron), thank you very much.

As for standard of living, Pehaps you ought be be viewing it as the standard of dying. The US is miles ahead for sure.

Still chasing the American dream Ron. You're only going to get a bad name if you keep hanging around with us socialists, so maybe it's time for you to head south permanently.

Allen; Yes probably there are 100,000 dead Iraq citizens. Mostly killed by Sadam. The number of citizens killed during this present conflict is around 15,000.
This is the price you pay for Demcocracy. Our forefathers paid this price. I think it's time to pay some respect to them. We couldn't fight our way out of a recycle bag.

Hey there allan;

What does this mean? "If you have an ounce of humanity within your body you would realize we all see you as the much the same as the American perpetrators of this invasion and slaughter."

That leads me to believe that you think anyone who disagrees with you is subhuman. The comment about "we all see you" sort of says you're just playing to some audience that you have in your mind. An extremely junior high school outlook.

Saddam was a threat to his people and seen as a threat to the u.s., didn't he conspire to have ex president bush killed? (your response to that is probably obvious so don't bother. The US knocked him out, miscalculated the response of a long repressed people and didnt have enough troops maintain order, which gave thugs and terrorists the chance to kill innocent people.

The troops were sent there to address a percieved threat. Stupid miscalculations have caused them to remain there. The US can't leave now until Iraq is up and running. Its a bad thing, but its how it is. The fact that Mr. Key scuttled off to wear his (bad looking) odd little Tee shirt has probably forced another young American to take his place. What a guy.

I wonder also, how many Iraqis would have been killed in the past three years if Saddam was still there? Are these "insurgents" freedom fighters or just bullies wanting to get their playground back.

Allan boy, if your going to rid the world of murderers and evil capitalists you're going to have to open up to the other side of things a little.

Otherwise, you'll just be a marginalized angry fellow. Or is it too late for you to avoid that? In my experience a lot of people who express the most anger towards the US and to other people they dont even know (I'm not mad at Mr. Key)are really more angry about something in their own life and personal situation. Did an American on a bus complain you were stinky or something? Is that the root cause?

Allan, you don't give half a hoot about the Iraqi people do you? You just need a reason to spew hate onto the big neighbor to the south.

Ethics? What ethics? What ethics exactly would you want us or anyone else on this planet to live up to Ron? Think carefully about your answer Ron, I'm sharpening my claws...

Club; I refer you to President Bush's State of the Union speeches. Any of them will do. Or perhaps you could read the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Read and learn, you will be much happier once you have learned these lessons.

Your learning disability is starting to show in public Ron. I'm not trying to expose you for your disability, only your misguided thoughts. Were your parents racist, or did you learn intolerance at Jr. KKK Kiddy Kamp?
Who do you think is behind the socialist movement by the way? We know who your hero is, who is ours?

"People criticize Key for abandoning the war and not honoring his contract with the military. Key’s response to this is that he was sent to fight an illegal war for his country and that it was the military who didn’t uphold their side of the contract. “I thought I was there to promote democracy, but I think I was there to prevent it."

Nope, you got it wrong, Rahritchie, Key can read a book and contemplate its meaning, he can measure the words of that book against his own experiences in Iraq, and find that that the book and his own first-hand experience in Iraq are revealing the truth of those words and the lies of his own government... and then take action to reveal those lies by the courageous choice he has decided to make.

It would be interesting, wouldn't it, if the government and its military had to sign that contract along with Mr. Keys that THEY were going to deliver what THEY said?

Instead they delivered just more lies to coerce and use the poor of the good ol' USA and the people of Iraq as dispensable pawns to further grease the oily palms of Bush and dick Cheney and Co...and to do the dirty work for this notorious gang of pin-striped outlaws...of outright brutal killing for oil.

I wouldn't call Mr. Key (who now sees so clearly through the lies of the US military industrial complex) "stupid" if I were you Rah ritchie...

as you still apparently believe these lies...

the ignorance of that belief only reveals you more...so I would stop the insults against Mr. Key.

With his obvious intelligent ability to discern the truth of a situation, Mr. Key, in comparison, can only serve to diminish you even further.

Rahrichie, you seem to have missed quite a bit of the discussion on this thread. I haven't heard anyone say they hate all Americans or have some death wish for them.

In fact some of us want to welcome Americans here who have the guts to stand up and say "my country is wrong" because most Canadians know the US was wrong, or more accurately lied to by it's leadership.

I certainly haven't said I hate anyone, although my disdain for the American political leadership grows with each day.

BTW you write much like another pro-American military flamer who was on here last week under another name.

Who's paying you to write such trash?

So, it was all just a little mistake by some dumb people, but it wasn't really a dumb mistake because you know that Iraq was out to acquire WMD.

Was it the scud missiles with cement warheads that tipped you off about the future power of Iraq?

Please, please enlighten us as to just when Iraq would have got these WMD and from who, because the last country that supplied Iraq with deadly WMD was the United States of America.

Hey, give it up and try some of the comedy blogs where they can really laugh at you.

Rahrichie wrote:

You sure figured this site out quickly! Please don't give up on us: not all of us Canucks are bigots.

tarheel wrote:

You hit the nail on the head, tarheel. Don't worry -- not all Canucks are so decadent and ignorant of history.

It drives me bananas how many Canadians believe that deposing dictators is morally equivalent to the 20th century genocides. I think the history of UK & US support of Saddam's regime in the 1980's means that they have a special responsibility to clean up the mess and help Iraq stabilize and prosper under a more democratic regime.

It irks me how many peacenik Canadians supported the UN in starving the Iraqi people through twelve years of sanctions, all the while piling up profits for UN insiders through a corrupt oil for food program. I wish the UN had given the US the go-ahead in the first Persian Gulf war to finish the job and depose Hussein, saving the Iraqi people long years of starvation and oppression.

Like many, I'm deeply disappointed with the efforts at Iraqi political reconstruction (thus far -- give it time), but the military presence is necessary until Iraqis can guarantee their own security against civilian-killing suicide bombers and foreign jihadists. There is no prosperity and civil society and democracy without peace and stability.

I am a American reservist mobilized twice for combat duty in Iraq. I am no kid, I'm 50 years old with 20 years in the Reserves.
I was there during the time that Key's cited.
Keys is a liar and a traitorous coward. None of the atrocities he uses as an excuse for his cowardous ever happened. They are totally fictitious figments of his imagination designed to incite the liberal idiots to his defense.
I totally trust my President and my government and I firmly support the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.
50% on an ASVAB means he is a pretty low on IQ anyway.
While I would like to see Keys and any other sniveling deserters tried and shot, the next best thing is for him is to be forever banned from this country, never to disgrace American soil with his return.
If you want to harbor this criminal in your country, you are welcome to him. As a self serving cowardly liberal with a big mouth he should fit into your society well.

Allan man, you questioned my humanity then said none of the kids liked me! There's some animosity there. Don't try to kid!

There were a couple entries here that referred to americans as "maggots and Nazis" I guess you missed those?

You'll never get anywhere if you refuse to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is paid to do so, or evil, or whatever, its silly. Maybe you're just pulling my leg on that

Hmm When woul Iraq get WMDs? Not sure exactly, but....I think it was the mustard gas attacks on their own people and Iran that led me to think Iraq had more than a passing interest in WMDs. Maybe it was the deep desire of the french and Russians to do business with Iraq and end sanctions that led me to think is just could be possible they could get this technology. Maybe it was the nice North Koreans need for money with which to repress and starve their own people that made me think in my simple mind that Saddam could get these things....Nah, no way.

Lynn, I think we're way beyond thinking of Mr. Key as some kind of noble Heroic Genius. Please.He's really not anything more than a fool. I wonder if he's a scammer who was never in the Army and is wandering around Canada pretending to be a deserter so that people who might buy his sob story will put him and his brood up for awhile. At least he would be showing some initiative and ambition.

Oh well, you guys are great!

You so-called “conservatives’ are disgusting. You condone murder, gladly, in your name, all of it based on a pretext for war, but haven’t the guts or the courage to go and do it yourselves. You glibly discount the horrific slaughter and death (on both sides of this war) as being somehow “necessary”. There is NOTHING “honorable” about killing innocent people and keeping your “commitment”. The honorable thing to do is to throw down your weapons and refuse to perpetuate an unjust and illegal war.

I know a man of 26 who is at present, considering joining the US Army. He has been told (lied to) that he can be assigned to a non-combat unit and will not be deployed to Iraq. Countless reported stories have proven otherwise. The reporter got the facts RIGHT. I also suggest you fools who think that declaring onself a conscientious objector is an easy way out to do some real research. It’s not and can be pure hell on those who try this route.

I am also well aware of the recruitment efforts now going on in the high schools, with mandatory ASVAB testing, meetings with recruitment personnel and recruiters in near constant attendance in the school (my own high school aged kids are reporting these facts). It IS a poverty draft and a “stop-loss” draft, with thousands being prevented from leaving.

I am deeply ashamed of America and most Americans and their blind support of the murderer-in-chief. As a result of this illegal war, I quit my tactical gear gun business in 2003, refusing even to sell it. Most of my customers were American soldiers purchasing nearly 1 million dollars in gear from my business in 2002. I refuse to support this war in any way, shape or form. I do NOT support our troops to be murderers, who are now nothing more then Bush gang-bangers killing on command. Those that QUIT like men, I honor, those that don’t have the courage to quit, I do not honor. Forget the rigged vote in America - let your feet vote your conscience. Those of you that are for the war - go to Iraq. Those of you that are against the war - stop supporting it.

Great stuff. The belief that all who disagree must be paid Staffers of Evil is a common and paranoid response on this site. The irony is that this response doesn't address the content of the belief they are disputing -- they are undermining their own purported value in discussion and diplomacy as a solution to all problems by refusing to address an argument on its merits. It reminds me of a so-called progressive group I was acquainted with in the early 90's: in order to make a decision "by consensus", they asked those who disagreed to leave the room for the vote ...

Dear: "Proud Oink Combat Vet"
Respectfully sir, you are full of shit. You cannot vouch for what he saw or what happened in Iraq. Even we Canadians have been charged, convicted and sentenced with crimes on the battlefield. Perhaps in your small world, all is A-OK, and you believe in blind faith. As a soldier you know that decisions are made in peace time and war that would be unpopular with civilians. The only "totally ficticious figment of imagination" is your view of the Government, fool.
It's not "WAR ON TERROR" anymore, your boss changed the name to "Global Resistence to Extreme Violence, or something like that, get with it! Lastly, are you referring to my country, Canada, as a cowardly liberal nation?
If so I'll remind you that the next time we go to war if you win it means we are tied 1 - 1. As we speak we are 1 - 0. So tone it down "pencil neck." You're idea's are about as fresh as our war too. Read a book why don't you.

I have served in Iraq. I served in a neighborhood of Shias, Sunnis, Christians, and Kurdish Iraqis. I arrived there a bit apprehensive, and left saddened by what started to happen between April and July.

I, like most soldiers, got no satisfaction of gunfights in neighborhoods. We usually lived in the neighborhood, for one. And secondly, we knew a lot of the local people as friends, as neighbors, or at least as kids we wanted to see grow up. If it were up to me, I'd never have pulled a trigger. Others in Iraq fighting the Americans and the government forces, don't feel the same way about fighting around kids.

What I learned.

1. Having a militia means that your opinion is heard a little more loudly than others. Particularly among the Sunni--but increasing everywhere--violence is the tool of choice to silence political opponents. There is deep desire for revenge for past wrongs against the Shia and Kurds that may overwhelm a reconciliation process like South Africa.

2 Although suicide bombings, etc get the press, the worst thing going on right now is the targeted killing of government workers--secretaries, washer women, police, army, postmen, officials, etc.

I guess the more coldhearted would call them "collaborators" but its hard to imagine a government elected from the majority of the population (however flawed) could be considered a puppet. We'll see when the government starts really blowing off the US in a few years.

3. There are a lot of educated, capable people in Iraq who want a peaceful country, run like a normal republic. They have no love for people who blow up the electric lines, water lines, or decide to set up battles in heavily populated areas. Suicide bombings of children need not be discussed.

4. There are also a lot of bigoted, medieval, brutal thugs who don't want a country run on decent principles. They would rather have a country that can be exploited for personal gain. This is the way Iraq was run for 35 years, at least, under the Baath. Most Mid East countries are run the same way.

Even if we agree that facts were fixed, or whatever. . .it would seem that decent, humane people in any instance would want to support group #3, despite the circumstances. A problem exists now, and the solution, ideally, would build a long term viable government. That won't happen if the old jackasses take over again.

Throwing down the weapons, quitting, leaving, etc "right now" would support only the thugs. What would result would be even more massacre, and an even higher brain and capital flight from Iraq that would cripple the country forever.

Were mistakes and miscalculations made? Absolutely. Was the war started to make Halliburton money? I find that laughable. Lying I'll leave to the historians.

I guess trying to get to the right endstate takes more than bumper sticker slogans and playground insults. I hope people realize what they are asking for.

Why was Halibuton setting up shop in Iraq one year before the war?

I'm with you Tarheel. We can't run now, it would leave a gigantic mess.

I didn't quite understand Mr. Free of Lies and he actually freaked me out a little.

Tarheel, by "April to July" do you mean this year or 2004? Despite the high visibility bombings and murders, it looks to me that things might be improving in Iraq a bit. Iraqis are taking responsibility for more and more of the running of the country are they not? The trained army, though small, is growing. Things are improving. If "freedom fighters" would stop blowing up water plants and such, things would be that much better.

I know, I've been brainwashed by the gov't and have bought into their lies just so that I can continue on with my overfed, self satisfied life. Let me apoligize in advance for my repugnance.

Hey chumpofrome,
In my position I (and members of my unit) traveled extensively in Iraq in Mar, Apr and May 2003. We saw no atrocities, no evidence of atrocities, talk of atrocities anywhere. Just the horrors that are inevitable in a war.
I'm not sure what war you are speaking of that Canada won. I know you sent some troops to the Fauklands but it was "won" by "Great Britian" with contributory assistance by Canada and others. Canada also took part in the 1st Gulf war but that was as part of a Coalition.
While Great Britian showed the fortitude to help in the Global War on Terror, the "French" element in Canada prevailed and followed the French approach to war.
I stand by my statements, and while I respect most Canadians there are a large number of outspoken bigoted liberal morons that overshadow the average good Canadians. These idiots are the ones which criminals like Key play up to. Your rambling, name calling post is evidence standing.
Further, My President, My government, My countries politics are none of your business. You have no right to berate anything in America, anymore than I have the right to berate the Government of Canada. My only negative comments are directed at the activists like yourself who want to interfere in matters not your own.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

I have no sympathy for guys that join a volunteer army in a democracy. They are adults and are responsible for their decisions. I have met to many people who have joined up thinking that they can’t be sent to fight, sorry but it is the army and they have a long history of going to fight. I would admire him if he refused to serve and stayed to face the consequences of his decision. My grandfather was a conscientious objector in WWI, he served honourable as a stretcher-bearer. I also respect Quakers because they live what they believe.

I tired of hearing this garbage about the “poverty draft”. The US army is far ahead of the Corporate world in promoting visual minorities. I met many American soldiers who told me that the military was the best thing that happened to them and gave them an education far beyond what they would have received if they stayed on civy street. I saw the list of what the US army offers in education benefits for the rank and file. My eyes dam near bugged out. If you took a SCUBA course through them, they would pay for the equipment, which you got to keep!

Even in the Canadian army, many of my top-notch Senior NCO’s told me that as kids the judge gave the them the choice between army or jail and the army gave them a chance to make something of themselves. The modern soldier is not the cannon fodder of 18th century. Almost every soldier has grade 12 and most have post secondary education. They are very aware of world events and receive intensive training. Western countries invest considerable sums into the training of it’s soldiers. Every Western country use “ROE’s” (Rules of Engagement) that dictate what they can and can’t do in each area. Is the system perfect, of course not. Is it better than what existed before, yes it is.

Rahritchie: Mr. Key, though perhaps at first naive, has obviously evolved through experience and self-education in his ability to think critically.

Critical thinking... not the best thing for a soldier I'll admit, but for a human being, one of the finer qualities to acquire. Not necessarily noble or heroic, (your words) but definitely a great part of what defines true intelligence.

For being willing to embark on that journey both metaphoriclly and literally, give credit where credit is due.

Proud; You nailed it about Canada having to suck up to the French Canadian faction of our population.
These wining french socialists have ruined this country, but we may have a light at the end of the tunnell. The may suceed. This would truly be a event of extreme joy. our Liberal Federal Govt. has stolen billions from the rest of Canada to buy votes in Quebec.
I suppose Quebec could look to France for defense but I wouldn't feel very secure if I were them.
Your understanding of Canada is right on. Thanks for your service.

Ron, here's joke going around all my right wing, bush loving, redneck friends. Tell me if you've heard it.

I heard the french just raised their terror alert level from "run" to "hide"

If things worsen, the level could rise to "Surrender" or to the highest level of alert "Collaborate"

The rise in alert was apparently caused by a fire at the French Army's white flag depot.

Niloufer Bhagwat, speaking at World Tribunal On Iraq:

"Halliburton Vice President Dick Cheney’s old Company from whom he received deferred wages even as Vice President of the United States, now one of the largest oil services company of the United States, and its subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root which provides extensive security and military support in Iraq, has been the focus of considerable media attention in the United States and internationally for the extensive contracts granted by the Department of Defense and the US Army, for the reconstruction of oil terminals and pipes worth approximately 7 billion in a secret no bid process from the Defense Department and US army, granted even before the commencement of the war; excluding the payments made to Kellogg, Brown and Root for services as Private Military Contractors.

In 2002 Halliburton was saddled with multibillion asbestos liability and the Company was affected by a slow down in domestic oil production, as a consequence Halliburton’s stock prices rapidly plummeted to $12.62 from a high of $22 the year before with rumours that the company would be filing for bankruptcy. With the no bid contract awarded a few months before of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the fortunes of Halliburton have undergone a dramatic change. In fact Kellogg Brown and Roots the subsidiary of Halliburton is a beneficiary of most of the wars waged since 1991 with contracts ranging from former Yugoslavia, to Afghanistan to Iraq including the construction of new prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay which require inmates irrespective of the justification for their incarceration. (Reported by Centre for Public Integrity International Consortium of Investigative Journalists)"

Rahrichie; What do you call a Spaniard with his hands over his head ? A Spanich soldier.
I guess if it's okay to make fun of other nationalities by those American hating comments above. We should be able to inject some humour into their dreadful lives.

Hey lynn,
You quoted very slanted liberal propaganda. The by-line says it all.
(Reported by Centre for Public Integrity International Consortium of Investigative Journalists)
Any on-line check quickly reveals this group to be a liberal front group with an agenda to spin.

Proud: Of course you don't know which war I'm talking about, you lost. Canada 1 - USA 0 look it up war monger. As for mind my own business, get the **** out of Iraq and mind your own business. Illegal, ask the UN. Or is that just another liberal cowardly organization, you closed minded, knuckle dragging neanderthal. Now that's name calling. Except for the pencil neck thing I thought I was quite polite in my last post. I hear the "outspoken bigoted liberal moron" movement is gathering momentum in your country too! Looks like you better get the troops home, and soon! You're about to have a riot on your hands!

Proud OIF Combat Vet is a sad waste of human flesh, and I am ashamed he is a part of the American armed services. I do not want people like him "defending" me. Morons like that are the ones who think that torture is fine. How can you kill innocent civilians, they are all guilty until proven innocent.

I don't care if you were as you say all over Iraq when you were there and saw no atrocities. Does that mean the torture at Abu Ghraib prison didn't happen? Because you didn't see it it didn't exist? I just read about an Iraqi guy who was killed by American troops when he was beaten and put in a sleeping bag, bound with cord, until he died. Apparently since you didn't see it, it didn't happen.

You are probably one of the compliant dolts in the military who sent out emails to your friends asking them to send it to everyone on earth that talked about all the great things we are doing in Iraq. An Iowa Guardsman sent out one of those that was full of lies. For example, it stated one of the great things about us taking over Iraq was the fact that now girls were able to go to school. Oops, girls could go to school in Iraq under Saddam.

You talk about how Britain had the fortitude to help in the global war on terror, please tell me what Iraq had to do with that? Not a damned thing. How many Iraqis took part in 9/11? Why was Zarqawi in Iraq, but in the part controlled by our Kurdish "friends" prior to the war?

I will not say the war was started to benefit Halliburton. I will not say the war was started to benefit Texas oil men. However, I will say that the war was not started to deal with global terrorism, as Iraq wasn't a part of that problem. I will say that it was not started to disarm Iraq - the U.N. inspectors had found no evidence that any WMDs existed. Bush/Cheney & Co. had a reason to start that war that remains a mystery. They wanted it bad enough to lie to get a war, but I don't know what the reason was.

The world is one world. We all live in this world. What one country does affects others, especially when that country is such a large part of the world economy and military establishment as the United States. To suggest others outside the United States cannot criticize us is ludicrous, and childish, but then again, going to war without reason is pretty childish as well.

That proud vet is typical of right wing nuts - he simply says if you don't agree with me, shut up. Sorry but freedom of speech hasn't been outlawed by your president yet.

This is what amazes me about the American army, what other army allows it’s soldiers the freedom to post stuff like this? You don’t have to agree with it, but the amount of information that is on the web from people in combat zones is amazing.

http://www.mythecaria.net/partingshot/index.php?m=200408

I know that some of you would prefer to post something from an Iraqi blogger, but as this thread is about the Us army an deserters, I felt it was more appropriate.

This guy who is completely on the side of the US military and not shy about it has some good and gritty stories

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

imright

What the Americans did at Abu Ghraib prison was wrong and stupid, but it pales to what happened in that place when Saddam ran it. The difference is that we he did was never reported in the media, if I remember correctly they found a mass grave near there full of fresh bodies of people executed by the regime just days before it fell.

We invaded that sorry land of Iraq based on lies - the same kind of lies I believed when I enlisted in the US Air Force and volunteered for Vietnam in 1967.

Seeing that travesty changed my life. No honest and honorable person can live with what we did there.

Now, we're doing it again, only worse. Sent by draft-dodging cowards, our professional troops are killing the people we are supposed to be "saving".

The ads for the military show young men slaying mythical dragons, climbing flaming mountains, standing tall in multicolored uniforms. They use the word honor a lot. It's because they can't show them doing their real jobs, squatting in dust and filth, killing people, being used as expendable tools.

Before the illegal invasion, we were told by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there were no nuclear capabilities in Iraq. International weapons inspectors Scott Ridder and Hans Blix told us there were NO WMDs. Yet the bloodthirsty and self-righteous went along with the will of the home-based politicians who saw political profit in sending others to kill for "peace" or "freedom".

To Proud OIF Combat Vet and others who support our murdrous activities in Iraq, I ask, "Where is the glory in invading and vandalizing a poor but proud country? Where is the honor in killing on command?"

Make room for that family.

hey, Proud OIF Combat Vetposted,

What scares you most in their title the words "integrity" or "investigative journalists"?

The UN, the UN gee why use them as anything but a broken orginization who was inable to stop huge atrocities themselves. Who cares what they think. New us Ambassador Bolton will bully his way in there and truly shake up this disfunctional entity. It should only be an association of Democratic countries and throw all others out. This could be an incentive for non-democratic countries to see the light.
What right does the UN have to call the War in Iraq illegal anyway. This is a non binding theory that carries no weight.The US doesn't need the UN or anyone else how to run their country.
I see you have now been introduced to the wingnut Liberal Canadian norm.It's sad, isn't it ?

Ain't this just great.

The trio of Ron Erwin, Moderate Man (sans his "loved ones"), and that wonder of American military wisdom, tarheelgermany have now been joined by Canuck sharpshooter Colin in trying to explain why the majority of Canadians, citizens of the world and I suspect even Americans think the Iraq invasion was not a criminal act.

No soldier, no matter what country they serve in is required to carry out an act they deem as being illegal.

Key did the right thing in fleeing his assigned killing machine.

He is the good American, the real American hero. His children should be proud of his decision.

Just ask the world.

This is from an American Soldier in Iraq Blog. I believe Colin had attached a link to itI like it. If you take out the specific references to Michael Moore, I think this passage can pertain to a goodly number of people contributing to this log. Something for you folks to learn from. Oh, I forgot, you know everything already and everyone who doesnt understand that is in an evil self imposed fog of delusion!

It is important -- and American -- to hold our leaders accountable and to question them honestly. That means not assuming your meager little political conspiracies are true and getting the facts (all the facts) first and then thinking for yourself instead of letting Moore-on formulate your opinion for you. Fabrication of facts, revision of history, weighted coverage (very weighted, in Moore’s case), selective omission of key truths, staging of content, and running commentary by a confirmed pathological liar do not facilitate free thought. They facilitate brainwashing.

One can attack the president and still call oneself a patriot. However, true patriots at least appreciate those that stand between them and the evils that this sullen world manufactures like Furbies. One can always gripe honestly about military policy and still be patriotic -- as I myself have done on occasion -- so long as it’s largely constructive and done in the spirit of improving the service, and not condemning the institution or those who serve in it. But never once will you ever hear me attack my brethren-in-arms or our efforts. Such is cowardly, unpatriotic, and yes, un-American. And as much as Mr. Vinch wants to believe Moore-on is as American as apple pie, the aforementioned titles are not in any way inappropriate or inaccurate in honestly describing Hollywood's modern-day Riefenstahl. But in a way, Moore is American...as Hollywood often defines Americans: fat, greedy, self-righteous, apathetic, self-centered, conceited, destructively idealistic, and too stupid to see what the consequences are resulting from the above.

By the way, Michael Fonda, you’re welcome for the constitutional rights that far better men than you sacrificed their lives for.

If we do lose in Iraq, it will not be because our troops failed us on the battlefield. It will be because we failed them on the homefront.

I notice that the Bush apologists and cheerleaders for our invasion of a sovereign nation have not answered my questions.

Where is the glory in being used to commit terrible crimes, . . where is the honor in killing on command?

I wonder of Rahrichie sees the ghost of Adolf Hitler in his comment:

It was used to justify his rise to power. Pre-emption was the excuse to invade Poland.

Time to read George Santayanna.

Gkam; There is no honor in commiting terrible crimes. Did you think there was ?
I agree with you on that statement, but I don't see what that has to do with the War in Iraq. This war is about good over evil.
I find it unsettling that you support evil.

You right wing people all seem to labor under a common delusion - that people who oppose what Bush did support Saddam Hussein. If that were true, your thoughts would make sense. It isn't true. I know hundreds of people who opposed what Bush did. I know of no one who supports Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a ruthless killer - however, there are many ruthless killers in the world. We don't have the manpower or the money to take them all on. Where were you right wingers back in the 1980's? Answer, enthusiastically supporting what Reagan/Rumsfeld and similar ilk were doing in Iraq - supporting Saddam Hussein.

Allan:

The "loved ones" bit is another poster ("working man?"). The "Moderate" moniker came from a posting re: how the NDP should be centrist and pragmatic rather than radical and not in power.

But you are correct in that I am a Canadian minority: on social issues I'm to the left of the Liberals, but on defence it seems I'm a conservative.

Here is a vital point: the US (and Canadians & Brits) can still screw up, but we are held accountable for it! To expect perfection in statecraft is silly. It is reliance upon reason and evidence, rather than fundamentalism and ideology, that separates us from our enemies.

Allan suggests:

I think he really means "just ask those who already agree with me", as though this is a substitute for an argument.

You bushbots should go check your facts. Over 2 million people died as a result of the sanctions against Iraq from the Gulf War to the latest atrocity. Or don’t they count? Another 100,000+ civilians have now died as a result of the latest US invasion. Saddam’s dictatorship was nothing compared to the devastation and destruction caused by the United States. Iraq had the highest standard of ALL the Arab nations. The sad fact is, these staggering numbers are utterly meaningless (there is no outrage), showing just how disconnected from reality we all are.

The fact that the United States refuses to abide by the Geneva Convention should be an eye-opener. The practice of “rendition” in other countries and by paid mercenaries makes it no less acceptable, yet this practice continues today. Who’s the real terrorist here?

Not a one of you military vets have “served America’s freedoms”. Not one. None of you made me “free” (nor will you). You did not write or defend the Constitution. If you did, you would arrest the traitor-in-chief and bring him to justice for treason and global genocide. It is a logical inconsistency to bring freedom to America (or anyplace else) by killing people in foreign lands. Sovereign nations have the right to govern their affairs as they see fit - without the intervention, invasion and utter destruction by the worlds bully, the United States Military. But you’re only lackeys after all. You are simply doing what you’re told, with your eyes wide-shut, denying the evidence, the facts and the atrocities. You’re being used and most of you simply cannot see that.

Those of you think the US Army is so wonderful - have you considered who is having to pay for
the “free SCUBA” equipment you’re so proud of? Or the education benefits (obviously needed
by those in poverty, thus a “poverty draft”)? Or the reason for the “promotion of minorities”? You comments prove my argument. The fact is, intelligent and well-off people have no need to turn to the US military. Some do, out of mistaken patriotism, most don’t. Or do you all suppose it’s a coincidence that the minorities, poor, even non-resident aliens are having to turn to the US military for a “career opportunity”?

The facts are, the global hegemony is a well-oiled machine, ensnaring even the honest and well intentioned. But honesty and good intentions are no longer standing credentials. Simply do what you’re told, don’t think and shut up, and all will be well. The rest of us, well, we aren’t buying it. Not one bit. The extremely thin-veneer of “reason” has been permeated through and through by glaring facts, inconsistencies and outright lies evidenced by destruction, torture, theft, rape, sodomy, assassinations and bombings (the US military has been caught planting “suicide bombs”).

We don’t hate you, as you might suppose. We pity you. We don’t want any more of you to die
needlessly. Nor do we want any more Iraqi’s to die because you were sent there to kill the
“enemy”. They are not our enemy - and never were. The real enemies are on this side of the
Atlantic and they are doing tremendous damage.

No, Ron, it is NOT about good versus evil. Iraq did nothing to us. Not a single Iraqi was involved in 9/11, nor were there any Afghanis. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies - political competitors.

We invaded an oil-rich nation to control it. Do you think we would be there if their national crop was broccoli?

Saddam was a creature partially of our own making, as we helped the Baathists into power, then armed and assisted Hussein when he took power. He was no threat to us, having been defanged by UN sanctions. He had no navy, no air force, and only scraps of an army, poorly-equipped.

Our government said they had "WMD" (a category made up to confuse the differences between nukes and battlefield weapons such as gas and biological organisms) because he got some of them from the Reagan/Bush administration in the 1980's. His anthrax was the Ames strain, cultured in Fort Detrick MD.

But it's irrelevant - we knew none of these weapons still existed before we invaded and killed the sons and daughters of the Iraqis.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is simply our attempt to dominate the Middle East. Look into newamericancentury.org, the organization that gave us the kooks who dreamed this whole thing up. They were former advisors to Benyamin Nettanyahu, the hardline Israeli Prime Minister, but he refused to go along with their draconian schemes. Bush wasn't that intelligent.

Those in Iraq resisting us are patriots - freedom fighters, just like our Minutemen, defending their homeland against an occupation by the world's most powerful military. They use the same tactics our forefathers did resisting the British, and will have the same outcome.

I had the same views as you before I went to war and saw the truth. Facing up to it was the hardest thing I ever did in my life. We are fed that "good versus evil" baloney, and those without experience buy into it, not questioning.

Our foreign policy is morally bankrupt, and our "leaders" perpetrators of war crimes.

There will be a terrible accounting.

Well, if you don't believe anything is worth fighting for, then there really can't be much of a discussion. Arguing that getting rid of Saddam shouldn't have been bothered with because we couldnt have removed all dictators sounds a bit rediculous.

It is a basic fallacy of to perceive the past as though the right decisions were clearly labeled as such. In actuality, people--through the filters of their perceptions and prejudices, try to make the right decisions based on a lot of unrefined, and even contradictory, evidence. This goes from squad leaders to prime ministers.

Some people long ago, including well known ones like Charles Lindbergh, thought fighting Hitler was foolish and futile. Why waste our time? And after a few hundred thousand dead, maybe we found out. I'm not sure Hitler was interested in any "dialogue" either. . .maybe some would feel bad for the day Britain could have just surrendered reasonably and ended the war.

If you think everything in the world is self evident, continue to solve the world's problems smugly by posting to blogs!

I think it was the Cold War ...

Imright seems to think that, since we can't take out all the despots in the world at once, there should never be the attempt ...

Do you really mean that you should oppose a despot in principle and never do a damn thing about it? (besides gab and write nasty weblogs -- that'll show 'em!)

I think its hard to make the case that Afghanistan wasn't involved in 9/11, since the organization that sponsored the effort was based there. Sorry about the mess, but would have been nicer if they had picked somewhere else to plan and train.

Sorry about how bad the 1960s were for your cognitive ability.

Why I Refused a 2nd Deployment to Iraq
By: Sgt. Kevin Benderman

22 people in Sgt Benderman’s unit have refused to deploy to Iraq. 17 have gone AWOL and 2 have attempted suicide. The status of the remaining 3 is unknown at this time.

http://tinyurl.com/bttr2

"...homes were bombed, people were living in mud huts, people were obtaining their drinking water from mud puddles along the side of the road and were catching rain in buckets when it did rain, they begged us for food and water and we had enough, we would share it with the people that were there, the kids looked especially hungry and thirsty. The commander told us to stop giving the people food because they would get food from other sources after the trucks started bringing in relief supplies.

"Somewhere along the route there was this one woman standing along side the road with a young girl of about 8 or 9 years old and the little girl’s arm was burned all the way up her shoulder and I don’t mean just a little blistered, I mean she had 3rd degree burns the entire length of her arm and she crying in pain because of the burns. I asked the troop executive officer if we could stop and help the family and I was told that the medical supplies that we had were limited and that we may need them, I informed him that I would donate my share to that girl but we did not stop to help her.

"When we were there, the command elements ordered the unit to perform all types of actions that are considered unsafe to soldiers, such as, having military vehicle maintenance personnel retrieve missiles that were present in our area of operations using a M88 recovery vehicle and transport them to sites to be destroyed by the explosive ordnance personnel. They also ordered mortar personnel to enter into a compound that held various types of munitions that the Iraqi army had left behind and to load these munitions onto trucks. When these personnel were not working fast enough for the 1SG he ordered them to throw the mortar rounds onto the trucks whereupon one of rounds exploded and inflicted shrapnel wounds on two soldiers.

"We were using an old custom building that was located in the middle of the town that we were in for the troop HQ and naturally that attracted the attention of the local populace. Small children would come up to the wall that surrounded the place before we had a chance to apply concertina wire along the top of the wall and they would toss small pebbles at us inside the walls. We would tell the children to get down from the wall and leave the area, one day the troop commander saw us telling the children top get down from the wall and he told everyone there that if the children came back at any time after that to shoot them if they were to climb back onto the wall."

"War should be relegated to the shelves of history, as was human sacrifice. If you stop to think about it you become aware that war is just human sacrifice. There is no honor in killing as many as you can as quickly as you can."

Sgt. Benderman's first duty assignment after completion of training was Ft. Hood, TX. Unit was 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. Also known as the Buffalo Soldiers.

Deployed to Iraq in March 2003 and returned to Ft. Hood in September 2003; 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. Re-enlisted with choice of duty station of Ft. Stewart, GA.

Two Army Commendation Medals
4 Army Achievement Medals
3 Good Conduct Medals
2 National Defense Services Medals
1 Global War of Terrorism Service Medal
Numerous Letters of Commendation
Combat Lifesaver Certificate
Student 1st Sgt. of Primary Leadership Development Course out of 400 students.

"I have been to the war zone and I have seen the devastation it causes. Why can’t everyone agree that war is the most repugnant of all human endeavors? Why is it considered noble to be able to look through the sights of a rifle and kill another human being from 300 meters away? Why are you a hero if you can throw a hand grenade farther than the next guy in the foxhole? Shouldn’t these young men and women that are in the army be throwing footballs or baseballs or softballs instead? It would impress me a lot more to see someone make the winning free throw at the basketball game or kick the winning extra point at the football game, or knock in the winning run at the World Series than to see them be able to shoot more humans from 300 hundred meters. I would rather they spend their time at the golf course or the tennis courts or in college, any where but in the war zone trying to survive and having to kill to do it. It just doesn’t make sense to me."

I don't know what tarheel's point was, but we didn't go into Iraq to rid the world of a dictator. It was our job to install those dictators, like Augusto Pinochet, Anastacio Somoza, the Shah, Argentinian generals, and Saddam Hussein. WE did it.

And bringing up Hitler wasn't a good idea. Hitler also used the alleged threats of imminent peril to invade weak and sovereign nations, just like Dubya. He staged a national incident (the burning of the Reichstag), then pushed through draconian legislation (the Enabling Act - just like the Patriot Act) stripping civil liberties in the name of national security.

Of course, there are differences, too. For example, Hitler was a genuine war veteran, not a draft-dodger. Hitler wrote his own speeches, and earned his place in the Party, not having it bought by his Daddy. And the alcoholic in Hitler's family was his father.

Other than that, he was a right-wing extremist allied with bankers, corporations, and the War Machine.

Saddam was a bad guy, but committed most of his terrible crimes while supported by Reagan/Bush. Why didn't I hear you complaining then?

The first Gulf War was a UN-sanctioned coalition to prevent Hussein from invading a smaller neighbour. The UN prevented the coalition from finishing the job, preferring to starve the Iraqi people with years of sanctions. It would have been more humanitarian to have simply taken him out the first time, but the oh-so moral UN would not support this. Then Hussein violated the conditions of the cease fire over and over again without any real repercussions. So surprise, Iraq was invaded by a unilateralist US leader who wanted to finish the job his father started.

Moderate Man seems to be making up his own history. The excuse for the First Bush War was the invasion of Kuwait, for which we gave the green light, through Ambassador April Glaspie. Afterwards, the UN sanctioned the international response.

The war was stopped by Colin Powell and Stormin' Norman, not the UN.

Hussein did not violate the conditions of the cease-fire - we did, by attacking targets out of the no-fly zone.

Lastly, it is not up to draft-dodging Dubya to decide to play God, invading a sovereign nation, killing their sons and daughters, and planning to pay for the destruction by pumping out the Iraqi national oil reserves, essentially stealing them.

You cannot deny that, it was proposed by Wolfowitz, the evil conspirator behind these crimes.

London:

http://tinyurl.com/b7ymp

Madrid:

http://tinyurl.com/cuj8t

Rome:

http://tinyurl.com/acmwm

Glasgow:

http://tinyurl.com/a8jja

Tokyo:

http://tinyurl.com/bdeaz

Amsterdam:

http://tinyurl.com/9gsdx

Washington:

http://tinyurl.com/arytv

Seattle:

http://tinyurl.com/9o8st

New York:

http://tinyurl.com/clqlz
http://tinyurl.com/dg93p
http://tinyurl.com/c9ycw

San Fransisco:

http://tinyurl.com/cqfsh
http://tinyurl.com/cekmu
http://tinyurl.com/czo39
http://tinyurl.com/7bd3x

Atlanta:

http://tinyurl.com/9xzhm

Moderate man seemed to think that my question as to where the right wingers were in the 1980s had something to do with the cold war. My point was, in the 1980's, the right wing was supporting Saddam Hussein, while he was gassing people. Reagan/Bush/Rumsfeld were providing weapons to Saddam. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I do apologize for confusing you with Working Man, Moderate Man.

But really, my "just ask the world" comment, I believe is accurate in that almost all opinion polls other than those cooked up by the US State Department and Tony Blair's speech writers, show a profound and growing disdain for GW and Tony's mess.

I thank Te' for the photo reminders that EVEN Americans are in the streets protesting this murderous invasion.

What a sad sight to see the country that once boasted being the bedrock of democracy now lashing out at the world like an angry old man who is losing his grip on his abilities and just won't accept that he has been hoodwinked by his own leaders.

It really is sad to think that millions of Americans grew up proudly following World War 2
only to learn through Vietnam the lies and deceptions their own government had stooped to to justify the killing of civilians on behalf of corporate wants.

Now they, their children and grandchildren once again see that the lies are front and centre as the U.S. killing machine flails in the heat and the dust of Iraq so that Haliburton can continue to pay VP Chaney a retainer fee.

While it may cause economic hardship I would call for the complete closure of Canadian border crossings into that war-tornd nation south of us.

Shut everything off at the border inclsuing all the Canadian owned-oil and gas in Alberta and other provinces.

Would we have traded with Nazi Germany after it used lies as excuses to invade and murder innocents in other European nations?

Why then, other than for plain greed, should we continue to truck wuth this murderous American regime that respects no one even its own people?

I was a little young in the 1980s to mount an effective anti-Saddam campaign. The next time we support him, I'll make it up to you.

Its not the politics I find repugnant, its the philosophy. I could care less what you think about Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, and all the ilk. Its just isn't relevant, in the broader picture. Comparing Bush and Hitler is just a cheap rhetorical device. How many elections did Hitler organize in France, and wouldn't he have objected if he candidate hadnt won?

SGT B is entitled to his opinion. And if he is revolted by war, that's up to him--he's not the first, and its completely understandable. However, as a mechanic his job description does not include 300-yard shots (but of course anyone can see combat). I suppose, based on his statement, he would prefer in April 2003 that Iraqi Army rockets, missles, mines, and the other ammo trash of the Saddam era be left around for kids to play with, instead of American troops taking them away. Certainly, all the stuff that was stored in shallow holes in neighborhoods has done a lot more damage to human life than stray American bombs.

Of course war is awful, but to say it solves nothing is completely foolish, not to mention false. It ended slavery in the United States, preserved Greek culture in ancient times, stopped the Holocaust and allowed a semi-democratic EU. Today a democratic and free South Korea has evolved because of a disasterous war. Just to name a few. Which of these situations would you prefer to turn back the clock on?

Of course solving problems through dialogue is preferable, but some people aren't interested in giving up on their perceived national interests without a fight. The EU will soon learn this about Iran, probably.

So, who has a solution of how to get rid of Saddam without sanctions that starve the people or a war that kills innocents in its way? If someone (Iran) gave guns to the Shia (as they are now) to do the same, would people wring their hands as much? I wonder if there is an Iranian Halliburton to blame the whole situation on. . .

Anything which existed prior to the American invasion of Iraq would be preferable to Iraq under American occupation.

Ever since Lyndie English paraded across the Abu Ghraib torture chambers, the US has no claim to moral superiority to Saddam Hussein. Americans have done more damage to Iraq than they ever alleviated, and their continued presence there is a matter of pillage, not order. Civil war between Kurds, Sunni and Shiites, and ever increasing global terrorism, will be the American legacy.

You are absolutely correct. Conditions in Iraq are horrible. They were pretty bad in Normandy in 1944 too. That is sort of besides the point, from the perspective of the hope of someone besides the Saddam family ruling the country. The issue is, if the Iraqi people wanted Saddam and his thugs removed (which in many parts of Baghdad certainly seemed to be the case), there weren't many alternatives. Either they themselves would destroy the regime through an awful and bloody civil war, or someone else would from the outside, or the regime continues to exist. You can't have it both ways.

Civil War in Iraq is no more "caused" by Americans than the Balkans wars in the 1990s were caused by David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, or Joseph Stalin. They are the culmination of decades of political struggle, combined with some strong memories of events of the last 40-50 years (I won't get into the Wahhabi-Shia conflict). People are fighting over the basic questions of political science--who rules to what ends. Obviously someone in Iraq thinks these questions are important, other than Americans.

Sure Abu Ghraib had some awful things happen, but they were reported widely by your hated "MSM". Could you say the same of Saddam's administration of the joint? If Abu Ghraib under the US and the entire rule of Saddam Hussein are moral equals (or maybe Saddam is better now?), that's says more about your sense of morality and outrage than anything else. It is so far beyond logical and reasonable that no educated person should bother with the effort of refutation. I think some historical perspective on the period of 1963-2003 would be helpful.

Maybe when after the State of the Union George W. has half the Congress declared traitors, taken outside, and shot on the spot, you might be on to something.

I'm glad tarheel has recognized the fight against tyranny to end slavery and the holocaust. He forgot to mention those battles were against right-wing tyranny, and the right-wingers started them.

True, battles are sometimes required. They are not, however, appropriate first responses to trouble.

And who said it was up to us to kill Iraqis? Tell me again why we are killing those tens of thousands of innocent people! The regimes in North Korea and many other countries are much worse - why isn't tarheel toting his rifle there? No oil?

No, . . Saddam as Bad Guy is just an excuse for our naked aggression. And all the philosophizing and shifting excuses for killing can't cover it up.

In my 61 years, I have noticed that every political system has a spectrum, from more liberal to more conservative. In almost every case, the trouble is caused by the conservative side. From Hitler to Stalin, to Tojo, to D'Aubisson, to Somoza, to Mussolini, to the Shah, to Pinochet, to Begin, to Dubya, the more conservative end of any spectrum is the self-righteous, violent side, ready to kill you for their values. That's what we have to fight against.

Three ways to make us all safer:

Support the police, treat Muslims with respect and pull out of Iraq

Ken Livingstone
Thursday August 4, 2005
The Guardian

http://tinyurl.com/alka5

Acceptance that the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on London now extends far beyond the usual suspects - from Guardian writers to MI5, Douglas Hurd, the Daily Mail, the Spectator, and a majority of the British public. Jack Straw has also acknowledged this debate. If the invasion of Iraq had been justified, it would be possible to argue that we must bear the sacrifices necessary to achieve a just outcome. However, it is evident that the war in Iraq was not justified. It has made the situation worse. The illusions with which it was launched are collapsing.

The reason the US is not able to stabilise Iraq is related to the same critical issue that affects policing in Britain: information. Which is simply another way of saying the attitude of the population.

US forces are ineffective because the great bulk of the population will not give them intelligence voluntarily. Therefore elements within the US military are led to resort to ritual humiliation and torture. This does not yield remotely sufficient information. Therefore US forces are led to relatively blind strikes against those opposing them - inevitably killing innocent civilians. This, of course, has the effect of alienating the population further.

The Iraqi people see US policy in practice. Successive US administrations showed no interest in Iraqi democracy - so long as Saddam Hussein gassed Iranians, Kurds or other US opponents he was supplied with weapons and other support. Only when he struck a US ally was he opposed.

After the 2003 invasion, when US troops were deployed to protect the oil ministry while looting gripped Iraq, when key reconstruction contracts were awarded to US companies, Iraqis understood what was in store for them. US forces cannot win over Iraq's population because the formally stated democratic goals of the forces have nothing to do with the actual policy pursued.

That is also why al-Qaida, previously without a presence in Iraq, now has a strong base there - damaging the fight against international terrorism.

...

Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds
18 May 2005

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1816

by Chris Shumway

A major study by the UN and Iraqi officials found that life in Iraq has decayed significantly since foreign forces invaded, following a general trend seen in most sectors since the imposition of a global embargo in 1990.

May 18 - Responses to a detailed survey onducted by a United Nations agency and the Iraqi government indicate that everyday conditions for Iraqis in the aftermath of the 2003 US-led invasion have deteriorated at an alarming rate, with huge numbers of people lacking adequate access to basic services and resources such as clean water, food, health care, electricity, jobs and sanitation.

"This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq," Barham Salih, Iraq's minister of planning, said in statement, adding:"If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration."

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) conducted the far ranging survey, titled "Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004," in cooperation with Iraq’s Ministry of Planning.
Researchers determined that some 24,000 Iraqis died as a result of the US-led invasion in 2003 and the first year of occupation. Children below the age of 18 comprised 12 percent of those deaths, according to survey data.

The study also indicates that the invasion and its immediate aftermath forced more than 140,000 Iraqis to flee their homes.
The 370-page report evaluating the survey, which was in turn based on interviews conducted with more than 21,000 Iraqi households during the spring and summer of 2004, might not end the controversy over civilian casualty figures, but the study’s authors drew a narrower range of estimated deaths. They report that the total number of war dead is between 18,000 and 29,000.
But they also acknowledge that their numbers are derived from a question -- posed to household members concerning dead and missing relatives -- that "underestimates deaths, because households in which all members were lost are omitted."

Other sources have reported widely varying figures for civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count, a website that tracks reported civilian deaths in Iraq, put the total number of civilians killed by military intervention at somewhere between 14,619 and 16,804 during the time covered by the UN survey.

A survey published last fall in The Lancet, a renowned British medical journal, extrapolated that 98,000 "excess civilian deaths" had occurred in Iraq during roughly the same period covered by the UN study, compared to the number of deaths to be expected in relative peace time. The authors of that study, who based their findings on interviews with fewer than 1,000 Iraqi households in various regions, were also careful to note that based on the same confidence level as the UN report, the possible range ran from 8,000 to 194,000 deaths.

.../continued

Child Malnutrition Worsens

In addition to deaths attributed to warfare, Iraqi children have suffered from a lack of adequate nutrition since 2003, the survey reports.

Data from the survey indicates that 23 percent of children between six months and five years suffer from chronic malnutrition, while 12 percent suffer from general malnutrition, and 8 percent experience acute malnutrition.

The malnutrition figures are consistent with statistics from previous, smaller surveys cited earlier this year by Jean Ziegler, the UN’s expert on malnutrition.

Ziegler drew harsh criticism from US officials in March when he told the UN Commission on Human Rights that child malnutrition rates in Iraq had nearly doubled since 2003. Ziegler said the rise was "a result of the war led by coalition forces."

In addition to war, the new UN report suggests that more than a decade of harsh economic sanctions against Iraq, enthusiastically supported by the US and British governments, has had a major impact on the health of Iraqi children.

"Most Iraqi children today have lived their whole lives under sanctions and war," the study says, noting that "the suffering of children due to war and conflict in Iraq is not limited to those directly wounded or killed by military activities."

The survey notes that children under the age of 15 make up 39 percent of the country’s total population.

Health Care Facilities Dilapidated, Doctors Frustrated Years of sanctions and war have also had a major negative impact on Iraq’s health care system, once considered among the best in the Middle East, authors of the survey observe.

The list of "current major problems" includes "lack of health personnel, lack of medicines, non-functioning medical equipment and destroyed hospitals and health centers."
Iraqi health officials express a great deal of frustration at their limited capacity to provide services to those who are chronically ill and to the increasingly high number of people wounded in attacks by rebels, foreign occupation troops and Iraqi security forces.

.../continued

In interviews with the Christian Science Monitor, doctors at Baghdad’s Yarmouk Hospital, said the main problem at is funding for basic medical services. In fact, they say the money needed to run the facility, which has the biggest patient load in Baghdad, has run just out.

"The health ministry does not have money to spend until July," Tala Al-Awqati, a pediatrician at Yarmouk, told CSM. "A lot of things have stopped," she said, "People are not getting what they need from the health services. Money for disinfectant is not there anymore; sometimes we must buy it ourselves."

Iraq’s Health Ministry had requested $2 billion for health care services in 2004 from US controlled funding sources, but reportedly received less than half that amount - only $950 million. Doctors told CSM that due to poor funding and the slow pace of the US-led reconstruction effort, projects to repair hospital water pipes and sewage systems are left undone.

In addition to poor facilities and the lack of medicine and personnel, Al-Awqati suggested that poor security is one reason the infant mortality rate in Iraq remains high under the US-led occupation. "Women can’t reach the hospital at night," she said, referring to the lack of safety near her own facility.

The UN survey reports 32 deaths per 1,000 births during infants’ first year.

The report further indicates that "infant and child mortality rates appear to have been steadily increasing" during the last 15 years of war and sanctions. The number of mothers who die during labor was 93 for every 100,000 births, far worse than the rates of maternal mortality in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Iraqis Lack Safe Water, Sewage Treatment, Electricity The condition of Iraq’s health care infrastructure is mirrored by that of the country’s larger civilian infrastructure, which the UN report says is marked by "degraded or disrupted electricity supply, sanitation, and communications."

In comparison with earlier statistics from Iraq on key measures of daily living conditions - such as reliability of electrical service, access to safe drinking water and sanitation systems and access to health care -- the report concludes that "an alarming deterioration in the indicators is apparent."
Of the households surveyed, 51 percent of those in urban areas of southern Iraq live in neighborhoods "where sewage could be seen in the streets."

.../continued

Nationwide, 40 percent of families in urban areas and 30 percent in rural areas reported living in neighborhoods where they can see sewage in the streets.

Iraqis are not fairing much better with respect to clean sources of water.

The survey indicates that only 54 percent of households nationwide have access to a "safe and stable" supply of drinking water. An estimated 722,000 Iraqis, the report also notes, rely on sources that are both unreliable and unsafe.

Conditions are worse in rural areas, with 80 percent of families drinking unsafe water, the report says. According to researchers, "the situation is alarming" in the southern governorates of Basra, Dhi Qar, Qadisiya, Wasit, and Babil, located near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. A large percentage of the population in this region relies on water from polluted rivers and local streams, the report says.

Although 98 percent of Iraqi households are connected to the electrical grid, 78 percent of them report "severe instability" and low quality in the service, according to the survey. As a result, about one in three Iraqi families now relies on alternative sources of electricity such as generators, most of which are shared between households.

Literacy in Decline

The past two decades of war and sanctions have also taken a heavy toll on Iraq’s education system, the report states.

The literacy rate among those between the ages of 15 and 24 is just 74 percent, the survey reveals - a rate researchers note is only "slightly higher than the literacy rate for the population at large." But this figure is lower than literacy rates for those 25-34, "indicating that the younger generation lags behind its predecessors on educational performance."

The survey also indicated that the literacy rate for women in Iraq has stagnated in the past two years. In some governorates, however, the level of female illiteracy is very high.
Overall, the gender gap in literacy is diminishing in Iraq, according to the report - but this appears due more to a drop in the literacy levels of men rather than gains made by women.

© 2005 The NewStandard.

wow. . .that seems pretty fair. Stalin as conservative? Hitler as conservative? Saddam as conservative? I'm not even conservative, but it seems that all of them seemed to profit from overturning the previous social order. That seems rather revolutionary to me.

But its nice to make such connections.

I would say the problem of giving information to the Americans/Iraqi government is complicated by the fact that informers in the security services report the informants to death squads. That is conveniently left out of your dissertation. That is probably a greater disincentive to behavior than oil contracts, which haven't helped daily Iraqi life since about 1979. Is that the fault of the US? Sure! to an extent!

Keep the well thought out comments coming. Pronouncing on how good Iraqis had it from the comfort of a fair-price Vancouver coffeeshop is fully without irony!

Colonel Klink is just making this up as he goes along. No corroborating evidence. Just the usual dull agitprop.

Wake up. It's not working.

Every time there's a bomb blast, the US war actually loses more supporters. It doesn't usually work like that. Usually allies step up to the plate and go to war with you without even waiting to be attacked first---just like Canada did in WWII, in 1939, not 1941, or for the Afghan Campaign after 9/11. They don't drop you like you're the poisoned apple. The only reason that would happen is that Americans have lost all legitimacy and stature, and have become insupportable.

In the wonderful Kootenay area where I live, where the Doukhabors finally settled after refusing to fight for the Tsar, where the Quakers came, and where so many former draft-dodgers, deserters, and American expatriates have found refuge, there are some pretty good coffee shops. But then, unlike the dim lot who spout that American war propaganda and alienate their few friends more and more, I don't need to drink coffee to think straight.

I didn't know what "giving information to the Americans/Iraqi government" has to do with anything. What are you talking about? Our debate is over the use of force, and the conspiracy to defraud us into war. Look up the Office of Special Plans or Karen Kwiatkowski sometime, and report back.

But now that you mention Death Squads: You're too young to remember those of Central America. They were the right-wingers with God on their side, supported by Ronnie Reagan and Ollie North, they were armed cowards who abducted poor peasants from their beds in the middle of the night, tortured, then killed them. I remember seeing the pictures of piles of young men with cigarette burns on their faces and bullet holes in their heads.

The Death Squads were protected and found cover from our ambassador to Honduras, John Negroponte.

Yeah, he's the same guy who Dubya made Ambassador to Iraq, just before the death squads showed up there - what a coincidence. They seem to have become Negroponte's trademark, and a lasting legacy to leave the Iraqis. But now this Mr. Nice Guy is the sole source of intelligence to our entire country.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh?

Don't forget the Office of Special Plans.

From a legal perspective this case is quite simple. Key signed a contract and did not fulfill the obligations specified. All the rest of the babble is nonsense anyway. By the way Te, do you think you could find yourself at a loss for words every once in a while?

Nemesis is correct about the legal aspect of this story. But I thought we had moved to the ethical bases of the actions of both sides.

And the discussion is not nonsense. It's an important indicator of serious stress in our society, and an attempt to define appropriate courses of action.

I am disappointed in the lack of historical knowledge implied by some of the arguments. Some seem to think we had some kind of excuse to kill all those tens of thousands of poor people. I guess they have forgotten that Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and his Terrorism Advisor Richard Clarke both independently reported how the Bush Administration talked about invading Iraq in the very first days of the administration.

Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski reported how Doug Fieth instituted the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to skew intelligence to make a case for an invasion. We have since found out that their primary source, Ahmed Chalaby, was not only an international crook wanted for bank fraud, but an agent of a foreign (and enemy) power,Iran.

All this points to a criminal conspiracy with an enemy agent, and within our government to defraud our country into an act of aggression against a weak foreign people.

These are capital crimes and must be addressed within the legal system, beginning with impeachment.

Te Aro Arahina
Thanks for posting the list of Sgt. Benderman's awards. They let me know what type of soldier he is/was.
2 Army Commendation Medals-Usually given as thanks for doing your job correctly, normally a goodbye gift when changing commands
4 Army Achievement Medals - Given periodically for not sdrewing up too bad, sorta like an attaboy
3 Good Conduct Medals Given to everyone automatically every 3 years if you don't get in any major trouble
2 National Defense Services Medals Given to everyone in the military during a time of Conflict/War
1 Global War of Terrorism Service Medal Means he served on active duty after Sept. 11 STATESIDE(Everyone who served in a Combat Zone got the Global War of Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.
Numerous Letters of Commendation Some officer thanked him for getting his coffee promptly-LOC's mean almost nothing
Combat Lifesaver Certificate-Just means he took a 1 week First Aid Course. Required of everyone.
Student 1st Sgt. of Primary Leadership Development Course out of 400 students. The Instructors pick someone for this the first day of the course. Usually the class dork. A position no one wants

Every award mentioned is of the variety that the average do-nothing schmoe gets, so called gimme awards.

It is most conspicious that he has no:
(1)Expeditionary Ribbons of any kind.(GWOT, SWA)
(2)Overseas Service Ribbon
(3)No Rifle or Pistol Qual Ribbons
(4)Iraq Campaign Medal
(5)Combat Action Ribbon

Anyone who saw any combat in Iraq would have most if not all of these.

And by the way Te Aro Arahina
Two words for you, rorirori tou

Saddam is not a product of the US, after he came to power he took advantage of the situation in Iran and used the US for his purposes. It was an odd situation, the only time that the USSR and US were more or less on the same side supporting Iraq against the threat of Islamic revolution being exported from Iran. The US biggest support of that war was in the protection of tankers leaving the gulf. Iran was upset that the other ME states were supporting Saddam and financing him. They attacked the tankers to attempt to disrupt his financing. The US and others took part in limited engagements to stop the attacks on shipping, but did not pursue a major military campaign.

The USSR, China, France and Germany became the largest suppliers of weapons to Iraq. The Iraqis ran up a huge debt during the war. The reason Iraq invaded Kuwait is because they refused to release Iraq from the terms of the agreement and Saddam knew that his already bankrupted country could not pay. The Iraq society that people talk about as being so good was drained long before the invasion of Kuwait. Saddam did not seek and was not given “permission” to invade. No one took his threats seriously, that’s were the mistake was made. Saddam did not give a S**T about his people and cared only about being in power and he used everything he could to maintain that position.

Did the US support him in his war against Iran, yes and so did most of the world. US policy at the time was focused on winning the cold war. Saddam used this situation to his advantage. Diplomacy has always been a rather ugly and dirty game.

Comparing Germany’s expansion just prior to WWII to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is a crock. The US is not looking for “breathing room” or an expansion of it’s territory.

What would people say if both the US and UK had packed it up and left the ME, abandoning the no-fly zone. You would likely scream blue-murder that they are abandoning people to a lunatic dictator bent on genocide. How long do think it would be before Saddam became a threat again. Considering that he had built himself a tight circle of followers and had 2 sons to take over from him, one of them already a rapist and murderer. So you would prefer another 20 or so years of his and his family rule? Followed by a civil war that would make what is happening now look like a mere brawl.

As soon as Saddam was able and he had a good enough excuse, he would have attacked Israel with missiles in order to win favour in the ME and the Muslim world. Saddam would need an enemy at the gates to maintain his regime, he would turn Iraq into another North Korea.

Would it have been good to get rid of him without resorting to war, absolutely. I have yet to see anyone here suggest how. The only thing I have seen proposed here is the Status Quo prior to the invasion. Perhaps you would want more sanctions against Iraq?

The story of Joshua Key begins with the fact that he failed to keep the commitment he made to the army and that he lied to get into Canada.

His character and integrity have been brought into question right from the start.

The rest of the article then becomes one similar to that of a man who has just divorced his wife.

He paints a very one-sided picture and, of course, he is the good guy.

I have to balance that with the accounts of the many Americans who believe in what they are doing in Iraq, and then volunteer to go back for a second tour of duty.

Right on, Proud OIF Combat Vet!

You know, after reading about some of these deserters here and there, I'm REALLY getting the impression that they are mostly a group of whiny losers.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: let's round this guy up and drop him at the nearest border station. mbjc88 has a VERY valid point - he lied to get into the Canada. That's gounds enough for me!

Obviously this isn't working. History interpretation does not lend itself well to debate or problem solving. Lets just look at this one issue and see who is flexible in their views. Who has the psycholgical maturity to look at a compromise with this one issue? What would it take to get the views from "hang the deserter" to welcome him with refugee status and a good neighbor hamper, somewhere in the middle. Let's treat this as conflict resolution. Quite frankly sniping back and forth with extremeists is boring. So...I'll start....
My solution: All deserters will return to the US, no jail time. They have obviously gone through a great trauma and have had to make tough choices. To be completely inflexible on either side doesn't work so what are you willing to concede? Perhaps they can get councilling and reassignment, or a discharge of whatever nature if no other solution lends itself. Dishonerable or otherwise, a then a least they could get on with life. Too soft for you hardliners?

Those who defend our illegal aggression against the people of Iraq (that's how it turned out) keep "forgetting" that the excuse was our imminent peril (the "mushroom cloud"), even though all the experts on the ground, going exactly where Rummy and Powell said the weapons were, reported back that there were no WMD. That was even before the invasion.

Now we're changing (and changing) the excuse for our dispicable acts.

Fact is, we were defrauded into war. Time for legal redress.

Again, look up the Office of Special Plans, then tell me if you feel angry or foolish.

Someone who deserts his unit, deserts the people who are entrusting their life too. So you will forgive people from being a bit pissed. It is also a crime under military law, which the person has voluntarily subjected themselves to. So releasing them with no punishment sets a precedent that will effect other cases. There was the case of the Korean war deserter that came back recently, due to the length of time between events I think he only got 6 months and a dishonourable discharge.

The guy had already served 1 year of his contract, he had the choice of finishing it, refusing combat duty and taking the consequences or injuring himself (a long history of this). Now he faces a court martial, prison and a dishonourable discharge. He has screwed himself and has failed to consider the consequences of his decisions, something from the facts in his story appears to the continuous thread in his life.

This is an illegal war. Deserters are heroes.

There is one factor not mentioned in this discussion yet: The agreements at Nuremburg.

We learned in the second world war, that individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions. No using the old excuse of following orders. That weighed on me while in the service, although I was not a direct combatant.

Personal responsibility trumps legal contracts. We are all ultimately responsible for what we let others make us do.

If I were back in the service, I, too, would have to resist going to Iraq and killing for peace.

Agin, there is no honor in killing on command.

"GeeWhillikers, Saddam was a dictator" argument is laughable. He was the pride and joy of the US Administration for too many years. Plus, they are ignoring far too many other dictators for the argument to have the slightest credence.

Combat vet, when the hairy man sat on you, he obviously dropped more than his drawers.

Lets face it the left was right about Iraq,

The whole bloody countries a mess and the US is bogged down in a Vietnam style war. All the right wing apologist are actually quite sickening. The vast majority of the worlds people and countries did not support this war. Even in the US millions are resisting and have the courage to unwrap them selves from the flag and see that this for what it is . An illegal corporate
war for oil men (chicken hawks like Bush Cheney)

1800 and counting dead US troops, 21 this week alone from one town In Ohio. FOR WHAT, FOR WHAT.

Was it for WMD , NO
Was it for Sep 11, NO
What was it for Democracy, NO , Wake up , the US has a long record of supporting dictators for economic
reasons. The question you should be asking is it worth the cost. If you feel so , write a letter today explaining to
the families why their kids had to die this week. Come on , maybe mail them one of those trinket awards.

My favorite 2 Reagan quotes, 1) When the Taliban was visiting the US, he refers to them as the equivalent of the
founding fathers.

2) When pressed about the brutal dictators in Central America, Reagan says , I am a contra.
Canada will always open the door to those with the courage to not participate in the blood for oil program in Iraq.

It seems simple. There was a bad man running Iraq, invaded his neighbors, killed a heap of his own people, and made a lot of people nervous.

After years of sanctions and no fly zones (which started with his invasion of his neighbors) and a terrorist attack on the US, the govt became sufficiently worried about him to attack. Most of The American People, who not too long before were attacked at home went along with this.

The bad man in Iraq didnt have WMDs, (even HE thought he did), the US found itself undermanned in a country that slipped into mayhem, the mayhem gave an opening for Saddam's bully's and foreign extremists to kill and destroy.

U.S. is stuck there until the Iraqi gov't is able to at least look like it can fend for itself.

Good US soldiers are getting killed, innocent Iraqi people are getting killed, thugs and extrememists are getting killed. Who kills more innocents? I'd say the thugs do. Its a bad situation that blood and persistance will resolve. Poor people die and rich and not so rich people make money (just like when Saddam was in power)

Lotta people resent the USA, so they play up this evil empire thing, evil bush plot thing, as someone said though, there's just no "there" there. No conspiracy.

A deserter someone caught in the machinery of all this who can't face up to his personal decisions, can't follow through on his committments. He's not a hero. He's nothing. Plus he has a bad shirt. Also, he should take his oldest boy to the mens room, he looks very uncomfortable.

By the way, can't they clone that Golden Spruce tree? Is there nothing that can be done to bring that wonder back into the forrest?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Sorry, just some right wing memories of a better time,

Rahrichie, wow, your such a matter of fact kind of guy. I wonder how you would speak if it was your
kids in the line of fire, your country getting bombed, Your son coming home in a box. Typical simplification,
Why don't you write your insightful comments to that small town in OH that just lost 21 citizens, and and then
throw in the bit about the tree. Priceless. and then maybe say sorry.

Rahrichie keeps confusing the attack against us on 9/11 with Saddam Hussein. Surely, even warhawks and chickenhawks know better by now.

It's time for a history lesson. Read about the Nuremburg Trials, the book by Dubya's terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, about the Office of Special Plans, and the memo to the president "bin Laden Determined to strike in US", and then go to the URL referred above by Stuart.

Colin: I respect your past service to this country and it's defense, also your passion about history. But I cannot respect your lack of flexibility when it comes to problem solving. We can't compare Iraq to the previous wars, even the Gulf war was sanctioned. Iraq, whatever your opinion, is not it's just the US and Britain? Is this a declared War? If not, then why can't you soften your line a bit? Where is your sense of compassion in a world that has changed and is caught in unprecedented growth and problems that go with that territory. This situation does not fit the conventional war scenario, IMO. So how about it, perhaps you can best give a reasonable argument from your experience of why this man or other deserters from Iraq could be treated differently. Give it a try...in the spirit of cooperation! Atta boy!

Stuart Dude, I know soldiers are getting killed, I can only imagine how their families feel. At the beginning of this war before it all blew to hell and people were saying how low the casualties were I saw a photo from a soldiers funeral, the honor guard was handing the coffin flag to the dead soldiers 6 year old kid. One death is a lot.

Little boy, I know soldiers are dying, its no joke to them, its no joke to me. Those men and women over there are one hell of a lot stronger than I could ever be. They are stuck with a crappy job and they are dying at it. Those guys sacrifice and honor make Mr. Key with his droopy drawers and head soccer stories that much more disgusting.

But you know Stu, saying "Oh US evil, lets drop our weapons and run away won't help a thing, it'll make those soldiers death an even bigger waste. This is a bad war, being fought by people better than you and me. And Mr. Key.

Gkam, the 9/11 attacks made an invasion of Iraq much more acceptable to the American People. Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 atacks. The attacks scared Americans, scared Americans are going to lash out. America has big guns to lash out with and the power to make big messes. Yup.

Richard Clarke enjoyed his time on camera. Where is he now?

Colin has points, but it's the old apples and oranges thing. The Korean deserter was in a war where we were the defenders. Iraq is a war of our aggression.

The Nuremburg principles apply here, and Key is honor-bound to resist being used for evil purposes.

Yes, . . but it didn't make it right. This will eventually wind up in the International Criminal Court.

As I said before, I would respect him if he had stayed and faced the consequences of his decision, but he didn’t.

And yes Saddam was a brutal dictator who fought wars with his neighbours and killed his own people. So because the West (that includes Canada) has failed to do anything about other dictators, means we shouldn’t start fix the problems?

The peaceful means meant to punish Saddam that the UN proposed for his invasion had little effect on him and caused the people to suffer, so is the UN guilty of mass punishments?

Perhaps your arguments would also carry weight if I actually got to see people here trash Russia, China, Sudan, Congo, etc with the same ferocity that they trash the US.

Yes I see now. We must throw him back to the consequences he deserves, there is obviously nothing wrong with the contract he signed and the way he was recruited. These are tried and true ways of tradition! We will need these in place as we march on to conquor other planets/civilizations in our galaxy and eventually the whole universe. We can't have deserters when we are up against the imperial forces of Andromeda! We must stand by these rules with life and death conviction because nothing ever changes does it? So really what you're saying is nothing ever changes. Wow! You learn something new every day, well at least some of us do....

Colin, your point of staying and facing the consequences is valid, but apparently, he felt that would deprive his family of any chance of support, and he's right. He's also right to resist going to war.

And the reason we are "trashing" the decisions of Dubya is because it's my country he's trashing. Neither Russia, China, Sudan, nor the Congo invaded Iraq, killing their sons and daughters, destroying their infrastructure.

It's the reputation and honor of the United states that has been trashed by the cowards who sent our troops off to kill others who did nothing to us.

If we're ging to start fixing problems, we have to start at home.

If we lived next door to China, Russia, Sudan, Congo etc. Hell yes we would be trashing the living daylights out of them! But we live next door to you know who. A country founded on many similar principles as our own. I see this country being trashed plenty around here. Let me rephrase that, people being trashed all over the country and the world. Lets be clear on that at least. I think the trash heap, if measured would be equally as high for Gordon Campbell as GWB from this forum. So don't with hold your wisdom from us just because some people here trash the US. That's like witholding information for our own good. So if you see that my agruments carry weight, I am pleased. Give us some solutions here, please and thank you....of course.

". They are stuck with a crappy job and they are dying at it. Those guys sacrifice and honor "

They are stuck because we watch so much FOX and CNN and have this Hollywood attitude and way of
looking at things. Their is not honor in killing , no honor in dying for nothing . No honor in taking part
in a crime, no honor in being blindly patriotic. Even Dudya is not willing to attend the funerals of the
dead, (bad public relations for the war ) and the MSM will not show the images of War like other networks
in Europe and the mid east, why show the dirty charred bodies on innocents and US soldiers, this will interfere
with our romantic good vs. evil scenario. The families of the dead have no voice and the soldiers coming back
are not listened to. I am with the US people, US soldiers and common folks who die for elitist interest , who
are not worth a 10 second sound bite on the TV, who was it that said, "no worries their are always a surplus of
peasants who are willing to die to protect our interest. " We are not in the dark ages, if you like it or not the entire
world even allies sees this as a colonial conquest.

Iraq would have not been such a threat is Russia and China had not supplied the weapons to fight it’s wars. The same with most wars in the world, they are fought with AK-47’s RPG’s, SCUDS and T-55’s all Russian equipment or purchased from a client state or China. So yes they should be trashed.

China has “illegally” invaded Tibet, where is the outcry, the demonstrations? What about Africa? Kashmir? To name a few.

I don’t disagree with holding the US administration’s feet to the fire and keeping them accountable, but look at the language, Satan, Hitler, Murderers, etc. This is not democracy at work, it is a witch hunt or some strange form of self-flagellation. Some people present good arguments against the war, but it is clear that nothing short of group suicide by everyone in the current administration would satisfy some here. The reality is that it is “fashionable” to hate the US.

The US people voted this government in twice now, the second time fully knowing what they were in for. ( I know that not all eligible voters voted, pressing problem in all western democracies) I don’t think the people that voted for them are completely stupid and voted as they did so to send a message to the world.

Also if this fight in Iraq was going as badly as you all claim, why would people volunteer to go back? Far more have re-enlisted than deserted.

Stuart,

Have you visited the blogs U.S> soldiers have out there? Do you know any US soldiers? Its like Colin says, most of the Soldiers coming back from this war are saying progress is being made. Most of them say the US has to stick with it. You've been in the left wing darkness too long, maybe you mind is getting moldy.

From what I've seen of the news, there are plenty of charred bodies to be seen. I don't think very many people think the Iraq war is glamourous, haven't heard that from anyone.

My town here has sent a national guard unit over to Iraq, they are there now. Fathers with children, mothers with children. Suburban people with houses, jobs and business, not the stupid peasants you've conjured in your mind.

The town gave them a parade the day they left, (big deal I know, but it was a show of respect for them as people) People are sending them things, sending them e-mails of support, money. Their stories are in the paper. They don't have a voice?

Stuart man, you have no experience with this do you? Don't pretend to give a hoot about the soldier, thats just a wall you hide behind so you can say the U.S. sucks.

To face a horrible situation and get through it, does hold honor. Its a lot more than you and I could do, Stu.

Why would they go back? The show I saw on Halliburton's susidiaries, Brown I think, puts on a pretty nice spread. Three wonderful meals a day, recreation facilities all inside a well protected compound. They don't have any idea how much this is costing when asked a simple question like, how much is this costing? It's millions a week/month for sure. I'd like to know who is ultimately signing off on those invoices, but that's another topic too.
BTW Nobody has answered my question: Why were they setting up all this infrastructure in Iraq one year before the invasion? Hmmm?

I see you're stuck for solutions just like the rest of us Colin. Anybody? Solutions instead of rhetoric?

I have to think that Colin is young, because he knows so little of history, and ascribes motives to actions not borne out by facts.

There WAS a big ourcry when China invaded Tibet. And the biggest arms supplier in the world is the United States, not Russia.

Self-flagellation? Has he read any of the arguments? Fashionable to hate the administration? Is he serious?

Colin is quick to ascribe the worst possible motives to anyone who disagrees. I'm used to that: After returning from the Vietnam War, I was accused of intentionally trying to hurt the US by opposing the war. Of course, those accusing me were never in the service, let alone in a war. They were making too much money supplying the military, while we did the dirty work of killing for peace.

If Colin doesn't know why some would go back, it's because he's never been in a position like that. When you have invested yourself in draconian efforts in terrible circumstances with disastrous consequences, with your life in danger, the last thing you can do is to question it.

That shadow you shot at and killed? You can NEVER let yourself think it was an innocent person, a mistake. To do so is unbearable, and the reason we have so many vets on the streets of the US today.

Denial is an important rationalization that lets us go on.

But Dubya's War will live on for generations, in the scarred bodies and psyches of everyone involved. Late at night the memories will flood back, with their nagging doubts, horrifying images and terrible fears. Sights, smells and sounds will trigger emotional flashbacks with great vividness. And it gets worse as the years pass.

All this will be reflected in relationships, affecting the next generation as well.

Perhaps it's time Colin visited the war zone.

There needs to be a clarification on Nuremburg and the law of war.

The Geneva conventions, and similar agreements, were specifically made to shield soldiers/servicemen from trials for participating in a war on the losing side.

Hence, by definition, serving in any war is not a war crime, particularly if you are serving in a uniformed force working for a nation state. Later agreements (some not ratified by the US) deal with the status of irregular forces.

These agreements set up broadly defined principles, including: proportionality, protection (whenever possible) of noncombatants, treatment and repatriation of prisoners of war, among others.

At Nuremburg, leaders were tried on the merits of violating these same principles. Therefore, following an order from your country to invade the USSR, for example, was not truly a violation. However, executions of civilians and POWs was a prosecutable offense. Soldiers, by these agreements, are not bound to deliberately shoot unarmed people or prisioners of war--as an example. The agreements do not apply to orders issued in the conduct of state business, except where orders violate these principles. This is what we see, for example, in the special tribunals for the Balkans.

The UN Charter and similar agreements cover the actions of nation states. They do not apply to individuals. They serve as a mechanism to determine response to actions of nation states.

Thus, even if by whatever mechanism (Kofi's words?) the US war was determined illegal, participation is not a war crime unless individuals by their actions or orders break the laws of war/Geneva conventions.

So, though anyone I suppose has the right of conscience to leave the country for Canada (and potentially suffer the consequences), it is incorrect to state that those who do not do so are war criminals.

Facts can be inconvenient. . .

Actually Gkam I am to old, for duty in Afghanistan, I checked. They want young guys that can run in full body armour.

And I am not so quick to condemn people. I said that some people here have clear and valid arguments against the war, I may disagree with them, but do not consider their argument unworthy.

And yes I am serious about the fashion statement part, to many people like to trash the US, but offer no other realistic solutions. So I stand by my statement, you can take it or leave it.

Thanks for the note, Colin. I accept your statement as honest and truely-held. But I think you err.

And you may have contradicted yourself a little, dismissing the opinions and motives of others as fashion. That's simplistic and somewhat insulting. I can assure you, none of my acquaintences holds his/her convictions based on fashion - we've lived too long for that, and have learned to avoid bandwaggons and convictions based on immediate emotion.

You accuse us of offering no alternatives in our criticism. Did you ask? Did you even listen? Apparently not.

Those of us who opposed the impending aggression vocally and strenuously proposed that international sanctions be allowed to continue working. They had already defanged Saddam, making sure he had none of the terrible weapons left that he got from Reagan/Bush, and could not have a nuclear program.

We pointed out how our own inspectors on the ground affirmed no trace of them in any of the places alleged by Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Powell - or anywhere else.

In fact, because of sanctions, Hussein intentionally destroyed ALL capabilities to have, use, or make such devices. And we knew it at the time.

But we needed to have a Bad Guy to strike out against. We were the Good Guys, . . yeah! Let's teach that guy a lesson! It felt good, didn't it? Hell, we had to do it.

We have to beware those who appeal to our prejudices, to our emotions - those who tell us what we want to hear, those who make us feel good at someone's expense. It's the siren call to the shoals of disaster.

Germans wanted to believe they lost WWI because they were betrayed at home, and that the Jews were responsible for their economic plight, and that it was their job to straighten out the world - for it's own sake.

The Japanese wanted to believe they had never lost a war in the entire history of their existence because they were chosen by God - and it was their job to straighten out the world - for it's own sake.

We wanted to believe that some women were witches, Native Americans were savages, South Vietnam wanted independence of and protection from North Vietnam, and on and on. All led to terrible tragedy.

The appeal to unquestioned prejudice, to unexamined opinion is almost irrestible, and we find ourselves in pogroms, lynchings, invasions, holocausts, crusades, and the elections of idiots like Reagan and Dubya.

. . all based on the appeal to emotion, and the power of unquestioned response.

But damn, . . didn't it feel good?

Lets go over this one more time, these are public documents, I know it hurts but poor people mainly are fighting for the US

elites in power. I know folks like Rahrichie love the were all in this together crap and have hero parades and romantic

ideas of the Military but frankly is not like FOX news. You are doing your country men and America a diss service by

this patriotic nonsense. If you want to support the troops , bring them home now. That's what they want, ask your self

if this war is worth your youth and a billion dollars a week pumped into huge US corporations, ask me and I will

provide a long list on beneficiaries of this war. And the names of the kids coming home in boxes are not on that list.

And you don't know me

How dare you say I have no experience, it was US funded gangsters in Central America that killed relatives of mine, simple

country folks , raped tortured and killed by that war criminal Regan, an entire people watched land being robbed and villages destroyed under the guise of communism. Hope it was a nice parade, (lots of apple pie and flag waving)

Sorry but the facts are here if you care to belive them or not.

1) In 2003 the Pentagon spent almost $4 billion targeting high-achieving low income youth with commercials, video games, personal visits, enlistment bonuses, and slick brochures.

2. The US military takes advantage of an economy that increasingly squeezes out those without a college degree, while gutting college financial aid and eliminating affordable housing.

3. Military recruiters never mention that the college money is difficult to come by, or that very few job skills are transferable from military to civilian life.

4. African Americans represent about 29% of the enlisted personnel of the Army, 21.1% enlisted personnel of the Navy, 15.8% enlisted personnel of the Marine Corps, and 18.5% enlisted personnel of the Air Force with only 8% overall represented as officers. Latinos represent about 9% of the enlisted personnel of the Army, 10.5% enlisted personnel of the Navy, 14% enlisted personnel of the Marine Corps, and 5.6% enlisted personnel of the Air Force with only 4% overall represented as officers. 17.5% of Latinos in the armed forces are in critical combat-related positions. These numbers are disproportionately high considering that African Americans make up about 13% of the US population and Latinos make up about 13.5% of the US population.

5) . Puerto Rico is the Army’s number one recruiting territory. Capitalizing on an unemployment rate of more than 40%, Army recruiting offices in Puerto Rico garner more than 4 times the number of recruits US-based recruiting offices average on a yearly basis.

To taheeel.

The Nuremburg laws were NOT to shield soldiers, but to hold them accountable for their actions. "Obeying orders" was no longer an excuse, and we servicemen were to be held responsible for what we did.

Stu Man;

Your numbers are either old or made up, since 2001, black enlistment has been proportional to their percentage of the us population 13%

You're right, I don't know you. I don't know if your central american relatives are real or made up, so you're not going to shame me with them. Are you sure they were US funded gangsters? Who checked their pay stubs?

The latino percentage is not all that out of whack with their percentages of the population. If you look at the faces of the dead, plenty of them are white, and I can tell you that plenty of them are much more than optionless losers. The US military isn't full of a bunch of dopes, it just isnt.

Has this war been worth it? Nope. Are we stuck with it. Yes. Pull the troops out and what happens now? Even more carnage. And you would be right in blaming the US for that. As I said before, we went in with bad info, miscalculations kept us there, running out won't help. (this is where you say I don't care about the troops, and I should take my sorry but over there myself if I'm such a war monger, loop back to the comments I made above.)

Oh well.

The Iran-Contra hearings.

gkam, I think your arguments are great, but let's face it. Talking to this bunch is a waste of breath. These guys think that medals received for following orders to shoot at children are an honour. They think that combat vets who fired on pregnant women, the sick and the dying who were going into hospitals for medical attention are heroes, not fiends.

As more information emerges about what they are really doing in Iraq, it will get to the point where anyone who receives medal or commendation for this conflict will be spat on. The US killed over a hundred-thousand civilians weakened by disease and starvation; it used radioactive missiles to bomb mudhouses. There is no honour in an illegal war for a president with NO INTEGRITY.

These guys are like the Franco supporters justifying Guernica. Cowards and murderers. They have no valour.

Te; We all know wars are won on the home front. Your pitiful attempt to divide the west so they lose the war is not working. We are all wise to your tricks.
And it's nice for you to mention above that the combat vets are " not fiends " Thank's for coming to your senses finally.

Well, if anyone on this board can type slowly enough for you to understand what they're saying Ron, they're welcome to bother.

Here's another thing about the crappy state of investigative reporting available in the States these days. A friend from Florida writes that his paper reported there were six marines killed in an ambush the other day. That was it. No mention if it was an entire squad who went out without sufficient resources, or just a smattering of casualties from a larger force. He figures the vast majority of the 130K troops are hiding in armed camps, while specialized combat units take the brunt, particularly one marine reserve unit from Iowa.

He sums up:

I don't have to try to divide opinion on this war. Almost everyone, even in the States, thinks it's the worst thing that happened since Vietnam.

You can tell the battle's lost when soldiers have to go online to try and justify why they went someplace to fight. No one ever had to do that with the war against the Nazis.

Te;

It was two sniper teams hiding on some roofs. They were snuck up on. The 14 who died were in an anphibious vehicle not suited to the Iraq war. That's kind of comment knowledge down here, no investigation required. NBC even had a little graph of what happened to the sniper team. They got slaughtered.

The unit was from Ohio. Not Iowa.

"Are you sure they were US funded gangsters? Who checked their pay stubs? "

The NY times quoted Bill Clintons apology for the US involvement. Forget the pay stubs, it came from the horse mouth,
I wonder how the US would accept such a hollow apology.

" In Guatemala Clinton promised support for reconciliation, and made a mild apology for past U.S. support for violence and repression by the Guatemalan military, and said "the United States must not repeat that mistake." (New York Times, March 11, 1999) " Allot of these gangsters and death squads were trained right on US soil

at the school of the Americas, http://www.soaw.org/new/

Anyway, no one is trying to shame the US soldiers who were lied to like the rest of us, I have ultimate respect for the US
People , the #'s I quoted are accurate and yes their are allot of good people in the military but the poor have always been a good resource. What I don't have respect for is the lying corrupt government and media is the US and Canada for that fact.

"Has this war been worth it? Nope. Are we stuck with it. Yes. Pull the troops out and what happens now? Even more carnage. And you would be right in blaming the US for that."

This attitude in general is part of the problem, first a country is destroyed and blown to the stone ages on a lie and then an occupation is justified by saying their will be a mess if we leave. Iraq is full of educated people, engineers and doctors, will it be a mess, yes. Will the people manage without the US , Yes, the world community should help out and let Iraq's guide their own future. Or do we still think we know what's best for these crazy brown people. The US has removed Saddam, by just using the international court to prosecute him and backing out of Iraq things would get better. Its not about stabilizing Iraq, its about stabilizing the oil supply. Nothing more than cheap oil, cheers,
Albert Einstein
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them

Ti; Soldiers couldn't go online during World War 2. They didn't have the internet then. Al Gore didn't invent it until the 1980's ( ha ha )
I don't think the war is going as badley as you try to lie about.
I listen to veterans all the time. They are not ordered to shoot pregnant women and children. Where did you get such a goofy idea anyway. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously. You are obviosly extremely bias for some unknown reason.
If you want accurate information without getting it from the old media I suggest you losten to KVI Radio in Seattle. They have two very good hosts. One is Sean Hannity from 12:00 to 2:00 PM and Brian Suits from 6:00 to 9:00 PM. Brian Suits is a National Guard who spent time in Bosnia and Iraq. You can find them at 570AM.
You really should broaden your information sources from only Al Jazera.

Sean Hannity, the idiot who uses bogus "Nobel-prize nominated" doctors as experts (Schiavo), forgetting that real journalists check up on these things! No wonder these rightwingnuts are so thick, listening to such sources.

Here's more about the rightwing media that deceived Americans about the situation in Iraq:

Arianna Huffington: The Judy File
Sun Jul 31, 5:25 PM ET

A recurring theme in many of the conversations and e-mails is how Judy Miller (Plamegate), to the dismay of many of her colleagues, never played by the same rules and standards as other reporters. One source e-mailed to give me some examples of this pattern: "In Feb 2003, Judy was in Salahuddin covering the Iraqi opposition conclave. Iraqi National Congress spokesperson Zaab Sethna told a reporter who was also there that Judy was staying with Chalabi's group in Salahuddin (the rest of the reporters had to stay 30 minutes away in crappy hotels in Irbil), and that the I.N.C. had provided her with a car and a translator (Did the New York Times reimburse them?). The I.N.C. offered another reporter the same, but he turned it down. Judy had just arrived in a bus convoy from Turkey, big footing C.J. Chivers, who was also there covering the story for the Times. While everyone else on the buses had to scramble for accommodations, she was staying in a luxurious villa loaned to the I.N.C. by the Kurdish Democratic Party...

"Two years earlier, she was on assignment in Paris for the Times and conducted her reporting out of the ambassador's personal residence, where she was staying. Felix Rohatyn, the ambassador at the time, was out of town, but it would be interesting to know whether the Times reimbursed U.S. taxpayers for the use of the embassy while she was there on assignment. What is certain is that the Paris bureau was buzzing about this at the time, as getting too close to sources or accepting hospitality -- accommodations, meals -- is a violation of the Times's ethical standards. The feeling was that somehow Judy was able to do whatever she wanted."

For those interested in visiting Judy at the Alexandria Detention Center, one source emailed that Miller's visiting hours "are fully booked until September 15."

Another I ran into told me that the Committee to Protect Journalists is very divided over Miller: "There are those of us who feel that this is not a good case for us to be identified with. There are too many unknowns and too much that's murky here."

... /continued

The AP reported on Friday that a delegation of the Committee to Protect Journalists (clearly not including those who do not believe that protecting Judy Miller is what they should be doing) visited her last week. During her meeting with the group, which included Tom Brokaw, Miller wore a dark green uniform with "PRISONER" written on the back.

According to the CPJ reps who visited her, Miller told them that while she is allowed to read and write in jail, she's been permitted to go outside only two times in the three weeks she's been locked up. I can't figure this one out. Are prison authorities worried she might get in trouble in the yard? Convince her fellow inmates that Iraq did indeed have (as she wrote in Sept 2002) "12,500 gallons of anthrax, 2,500 gallons of gas gangrene, 1,250 gallons of aflotoxin and 2,000 gallons of botulism throughout the country"?

Besides being able to read and write, she's also able to make long-distance phone calls (collect, I assume). According to a source, she used one of her allowed calls to phone her publisher pal Mort Zuckerman to complain about a Lloyd Grove column that ran in Zuckerman's New York Daily News, in which Grove reported, correctly, that while Miller is in jail her husband, "famed editor Jason Epstein," is cruising around the Mediterranean aboard the Silver Shadow cruise liner. The Grove column included a delicious riff from Chris Buckley. Miller, apparently, was not amused. Grove's piece also featured a priceless quote from Miller's attorney Bob Bennett who, when asked about Epstein's travels, replied, "We all serve our time in our own way."

Speaking of Bennett, we had a brief but memorable e-exchange with him on Friday, when the HuffPost contacted him to ask about a tip I'd gotten that Miller was in the process of negotiating a book deal about her Plamegate/prison experiences. When asked to confirm the story, Bennett e-mailed back a lawyerly: "Where did you get this info?" Was he expecting me to give him the name, address, and blood type of my source? We replied that I had heard it through "publishing sources" -- to which he emailed back: "No Comment".

Thanks, Bob. Should we take "No Comment" to mean "yes" -- since if you'd meant "no" you surely would have said so? Unsolicited advice to Alice Mayhew, Judy Miller's legendary editor at Simon and Schuster (if she's the one negotiating with Bennett): Hold your horses or, if you can't, keep the advance very low. A reporter going to jail to protect her own *** and not a source smells like remainder to me. But what worries my Times sources the most is that it smells like the straw that could break the Gray Lady's back. A lot hinges on how much of what Judy knows Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger also know. Keller has been very cagey on the subject. When asked by George Stephanopoulos on Nightline if he knew who Miller's source was, he refused to say yes or no.

And no fewer than four sources have either e-mailed, called, or, in one case, run up to me on the street to tell me that what I termed Miller's "especially close relationship" with Chief Warrant Officer Richard Gonzales, the leader of the WMD-hunting unit Miller was embedded with during the war, might have been, well, very close indeed. According to one insider, Miller had emailed a picture of Gonzales to a colleague at the Times with the message "Lucky Lady".

I don't agree. If the US leaves, IRAQ will split into three, with the middle warring with the south and north for the oil. It would be slaughter.

But I hope I didnt give the impression that I thought the Gulf wars weren't fought by the US for economic reasons. The US needs to secure oil for itself and the whole world in order to keep the big global consumption engine going. I know you think thats a bad thing, but I don't. Humans progress through commerce, (some get left behind) right now commerce is fueled by oil.

Its true that the root cause of the mess over there is oil. W/O oil, Saddam wouldnt have the money to threaten anyone (percieved or Real).
Without Oil, would the US really care about what happens over there? Nope. Without oil would terrorists have funding? Not as much.
Is oil important to not only to the US but the Chinese, India, Europe, Canada and the third world? It sure is. Did the US save Kuwait in order to keep the oil flowing, yup. Thats how it is.

Is that evil? I say no. Its true that for business and security reasons, ecological too oil has to be a thing of the past. The price of the oil has to get high enough so that vested corporate interests have a motivation to look into other energy sources.

I hope they can prop up the Iraqi gov't just enough so that we can get out of there. While the troops are there, I suppport them. They got a crappy end of the stick. They are fighting people who would love to harm us. If something good could come out of this, like a democratic Iraq that would be great. The best thing that could happen would be that we lose our taste for fighting for the worlds oil and find other sources.

Its all to support the status quo and to protect the country. I still support our troops, I think George Bush did not not lie but was wrong, and think running away would be the dishonorable thing and lead to more bloodshed. Tell me I'm evil!

Oh great, I guess our boys in Kandahar will feel really thrilled about fighting for this guys freedom to live in peace in Canada. What a farce. Send him back, at least until our soldiers come home.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"But I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought the Gulf wars weren't fought by the US for economic reasons. The US needs to secure oil for itself and the whole world in order to keep the big global consumption engine going. I know you think that's a bad thing, but I don't. Humans progress through commerce, (some get left behind) right now commerce is fueled by oil."

Do we change our ways or keep the status quo at any cost. What are you willing to kill and die for. Do you look for
alternatives or do we stay the course , do you pressure our governments and dissent or accept the brutality as
a necessity to our way of life.

gkam,

You are a historical ignoramus. I don't care how many bombing missions you were on.

The Nuremberg Laws . . .were the Nazi legislation passed between 1933 and 1939 that effectively banned Jews from public life in Germany. It established so called "racial purity" as the governing principal for employment, voting, and marriage, among other things. You sound pretty smart talking about the Nuremberg Laws.

If, per chance, you were referring to the 1949 update to the Geneva Protocols, you will see that it mentions exactly what I said, which in general refers to conduct on occupied territory. This follows earlier protocols which protect humanitarian groups, holy places, and hospitals. Hence, blowing up a Red Cross Office, or using a mosque or a hospital as a fortress is explicitly a War Crime. Incidentally, giving military purpose to a protected site removes that site from the protected list!

If per chance, you were referring to the Nuremberg Trials, you would see that the "following orders" defense indeed was not accepted--but in cases where laws of war or international laws concerning occupation had been violated, including by heads of state or government officials (the Nuremburg Principles). Pray show me the UN, or any legislation, that declared the Iraq war illegal. Strangely enough, following resolutions committed the UN to the support of the sovereign government. So there isn't much to go on, legally, other than your own blowhard opinions.

Hence, as you would know, if a military action is deemed necessary and proportional, it is not illegal. There are actions that haven't been seen that way, and trials have resulted. I guess when they are followed by ritual stoning, you'll be satisfied.

I enjoy this page. It gives the same experience as talking to Creationists. The hell with the facts. Here's what I think--that's good enough!

I wonder if anyone in Canada has made any critical thinking to the importance of oil in their lives, and their relative lack of personal commitment to a solution. You're no better than the US.

Click on my link above and see what the US gov is doing in your name. Have some courage to back your callous
words. Than ask yourself if Mr. Keys should take part in this savage war, you imagine the mentally disturbed and
permanently injured US soldiers coming home, check out the wonderful pics and please explain to me the honor
Mr Keys is not living up to , God Help us.

Rahrichies, by your own words, you understand enough of the reasons for this war to be seen as someone who fully supports the evil.

Your lengthy explanation above could have been simply boiled down to "hey, it's just business."

But I do congratualate you for being the first neo-con on Tyee so far to admit this is all about oil.

In that sense you are a breath of fresh air in comparison to a guy named Ron who still waves the freedom and democracy flags.

Oh look Ron, you've gone and smeared crude oil on both those dang flags once again.

"I wonder if anyone in Canada has made any critical thinking to the importance of oil in their lives, and their relative lack of personal commitment to a solution. You're no better than the US."

We did and considered keeping oil cheap not worth the human toll. how about you, change you ways or keep being a oil company ganster.

This is actually quite refreshing, open and outright honesty. America needs oil, they have it, we want it and will take
it at any cost. Oh course the people who make the profit are not the ones paying the cost. Ask the families of Iraq's and 1800 and counting dead US marines who's paying the cost.

Anyway the tide is changing in the world, over 50 million folks protested the war before it even took place. Millions in the
US dissented and 1000's of US solders are disserting to Canada, not wiling to die and kill for cheap oil. Bush has been a great organizer for social change and new systems are emerging all over Latin and South America. Aka , Valenzuela and others,

I'm not trying to kid anyone, life on this earth is business at its core. Hell, I'm typing this stuff from my desk at work!

Ever since the Garden of Eden (do you believe in that?) people have had to struggle for survival. If that struggle leads to improvements in human life, thats a good thing.

For a hundred years, oil was the fuel for the improvement in human life (yup its been uneven improvement). Terrorists and thugs have used or need for oil to threaten us and that progress. They attacked us. Its not wrong to stop those thugs not only to punish them but to protect the oil the whole world (left, right and center wings) needs.

Oil has pretty much lived out its usefulness, it does cost too much blood and treasure to keep in flowing. Still, we simply can't let terrorist and killers force the change on us. They need to be stopped before the create a new dark age and we in the west have to move on to other sources of energy.

I'm proud that the US has the guts to do what Europe and other countries cannot. Its easy criticise the US b/c they are doing something. The do nothing course would work out horribly. You think if the US leaves Iraq these people are going to smile and wave? Please.

As some genius once said, "Baby baby its a wild world, it hard to get by just upon a smile girl"

This discussion group is much more interesting than the one about the person impersonating an editor.

Oh, and this isnt just about America's need for oil, its the whole world's need. Its America fighting for its protection.

Also, don't kid yourself that the terrorist threatening ALL our lifestyles have any love for socialist or leftists or tree lovers. They would blow up your bus just as quickly as they would my car.

Thousands of soldiers are deserting? To Canada? Surely there are more hospitable climes to think about failure to deliver on commitments! Personally, I'd rather be in Costa Rica. No army at all, and you don't have any Canadians saying how great it is to fly over two provinces to give birth to a baby!

Thanks to the fair-price coffee crowd for another sterling example of an unsupported statement. Lucky this isnt the international debating olympics!

It sounds like one of two of these boys took a few too many scraps of shrapnel through their skull.

It's "Fair-TRADE coffee", shrapnel boy, and most Canadians think it's a mark of honour not to drink or guzzle things that require the slave-style exploitation or going to war. That's okay, though, you keep special-pleading your cause. It's the best way of reminding Canadians exactly who ourConservatives want us to support, and there couldn't be a more sure-fire way of keeping them out of power.

Have you noticed tarhell hasn't provided any facts?

gkam: Like Te Aro, I am enjoying reading your eloquent powerful pieces... especially your comment that the anguish, the scars of war are carried forward into the next generation... felt by them also. Wars do not simply end...but carry with them enormous consequences that run through time...thus the importance of listening to recommendations from the Nuremburg Military Tribunal:

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

Article 7.
The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. Article 8.
[The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

It is my belief Mr. Key is doing the right thing.

This has been the most entertaining thing I've ever done on the internet.

I'm not sure anyone who has dropped by for a coffee at any store could call it a fair price for some old beans. But I'll keep paying it.

I guess you are helping out with global warming by closing down that awful series of automobile manufacturing plants in Windsor Ontario. or is global business only ok when its paying your health care bills?

You are absolutely correct. If Mr Key's superior told him to shoot an unarmed civilian, and he did so, he would not be exempt from War Crimes Laws (these are, incidentally, part of both US Law and US Military Law).

However, the Geneva Accords and the Nuremberg Principles (interesting to note that the Nuremberg trials were later seen as legally dubious by many Western legal scholars) contain no provision against a soldier who deploys in any war, and fights within the Law of War. What Mr. Keys conscience dictates is his own business, but not covered in the Geneva convention.

You see, in old times, it was common to jail or execute anyone who was on the losing side of a war. These rules "civilized" (unfortunate choice of words) war by not making participation a crime, while instituting laws that criminalized "uncivilized" behavior like killing the entire family of a lawful combatant or policeman. . .like

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KHA424109.htm

Presumbably, President Bush could be found liable under Article 7. By law, that seems unlikely to happen. But I guess the ICC approach of "lets make it up as we go along" could also apply.

"During a traffic control point that Key was part of, an American tank blew up a car that passed through without permission. There was a father and his child inside. The father was dead and the boy was badly injured. Key bandaged him up and took him to the closest hospital.

“I wasn’t supposed to do this as it showed sympathy to the enemy.” Key and other U.S soldiers searched the car afterwards and there were no signs of contraband anywhere. “They just didn’t understand what stop meant,” he says sadly. There were signs everywhere that showed the military’s lack of control'"

Eman Khammas, testimony World Tribunal on Iraq:

"The American forces occupy the buildings, mostly private houses, where they imprison the whole family. They put them in one of the rooms, using the rest of the house as their quarters, as a temporary military station. Then they go around the neighbourhood firing at people. I can understand why a soldier would shoot at a young person; he may feel threatened. But why would anyone point a gun at a 65 year-old woman? There are such examples, which are difficult to explain to you, such as American troops shooting a 3 year-old baby in the head. Women sitting in their houses are fired at.

A vehicle carrying a young wounded boy with his mother was shot at. Having spoken to these people, this is a testimony from a witness: after the shooting, the young man jumped out of the car and was shot at. He was told to creep and then was shot again. I can tell you about dozens of these examples."

The brutal targeting of civilians, as cited above:

Within the Law of War or not?

Eman Khammas:

"When the U.S. imposes an embargo on a city, or when it encircles a city, the routes are blocked and any vehicle which approaches the city is shot at, without discrimination as to who is in the car - women, children, all will be killed. I personally witnessed the result of this in the hospital of Hadissa.

Yusuf and Fouad worked for a store selling construction materials. They were coming towards Hadissa when they were shot at, one in the head and the other in the chest. I have seen their photographs. They were both married and had children. This is one of many examples for tens of cities under siege. These bombings sometimes last for weeks until American forces decide that they can go into a city without being shot at.

I must tell you that in these so called “cities of resistance”, there are in fact no camps filled with resistors; there are no fortifications. These cities are constantly bombed. Houses are blown up with people inside. Unfortunately, crowded families living in these houses bear the brunt of all this. When a hospital or a government office is bombed, people are left under the rubble for days until they die because no one will or can save them."

Within the Law of war or not?

Te said:

They sure didn't!

But then again, they weren't able to go "online"...

Other then that, plenty of soldiers wrote editorials justifying and condemning WW2 throughout it's course... certainly many more soldiers did so during Vietnam and the wars following. Soldiers always have something to say about the situation they're in and they have a unique perspective from the rest of us. That's perfectly normal.

Alright, I couldn't help but post that last one. Ha.

Anyway, the point remains that in accordence with international law, Key is an unlawful deserter from a country we have an extradition treaty with.

Because (like Jeremy Hinzman) the courts have decided (very rightly) that modern military deserters from the USA's volunteer army face prosecution but not persecution, Canada will be required to ship Key home, if he comes into Federal custody.

Key will not be able to claim protection under human rights law because he was never asked to purposefully target civilians and because he has no evidence of a war crime being committed.

His complaint about vehicles that speed checkpoints being shot upon (And civilians being killed) is not a courtroom-ready accusation because a) there is a high potential of risk of car bombs and b) the civilians should have known better, anywhere in the world, you see a checkpoint, you stop. It doesn't matter what language the foreign soldiers are speaking, unless they are waving you through, you stop.

As I have pointed out earlier, Key's only (legal) hope lies in his ability to prove that he was duped when he joined the army. Either that or he must prove himself to be mentally incompetent, which considering the mess he's gotten himself and his family into, might not be that hard.

U.S. Journalist Killed In Iraq
Posted on Wednesday, August 03 @ 00:32:38 PDT

American freelance journalist, Steven Vincent, was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, the U.S. Embassy said Wednesday, after he and his Iraqi translator were abducted at gunpoint hours earlier.

"I can confirm to you that officials in Basra have recovered the body of journalist Steven Vincent," said embassy spokesman Pete Mitchell. "The U.S. Embassy is working with British military and local Iraqi officials in Basra to determine who is responsible for the death of this journalist. Our condolences go out to the family."

Iraqi police in Basra said Vincent was abducted along with his female translator at gunpoint Tuesday evening. The translator, Nour Weidi, was seriously wounded.

Vincent and the translator were seized Tuesday afternoon by five gunmen in a police car as they left a currency exchange shop, police Lt. Col. Karim al-Zaidi said. Vincent's body was discovered on the side of the highway south of Basra later. He had been shot in the head and multiple times in the body, al-Zaidi said.

In an opinion column published July 31 in The New York Times, Vincent wrote that Basra's police force had been heavily infiltrated by members of Shiite political groups, including those loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Vincent quoted an unidentified Iraqi police lieutenant as saying that some police were behind many of the assassinations of former Baath Party members that have taken place in Basra.

"He told me that there is even a sort of "death car" - a white Toyota Mark II that glides through the city streets, carrying off-duty police officers in the pay of extremist religious groups to their next assignment," he wrote.

Vincent was also critical of the British military, which is responsible for security in Basra, for turning a blind eye to abuses of power by Shiite extremists in the city.

From Sidney Blumenthal's column in the Guardian:

"...The Pentagon has appealed against a federal judge's ruling to make public 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib depicting "rape and murder", according to a senator who has seen them. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has quashed the recommendation of military investigators looking into FBI reports of torture at Guantánamo that its commander, Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller, be reprimanded for dereliction of duty..."

"But the dirty war that damages the difficult work of counter-terrorism continues unabated. It goes on for reasons beyond domestic political consumption. At its heart lies the drive for concentrated executive power above the rule of law. Predictably, Bush's dirty war is having a counter-productive effect, just as dirty wars did in Vietnam, Algeria and Argentina. For every militant abused or killed, a community of like-minded militants is inspired. Hatred, resentment and vengeance are the natural outcomes. There has never been a victory through a dirty war over these forces."

lynn,

Thank you for your reasoned postings.

Of course Mr. Key was ethically correct in seeking refuge away from the U.S. military and its acts of butchery against an already-suffering Iraq citizenry.

There had to have been a deliberate seeking out of sub-human specimens for enlistment, to have committed many of the brutal acts recorded.

Gkam

Thank you for your comments. To answer your question, yes I have asked (in fact I am waiting for someone to answer my question in the General Hillers thread) and make a point to do so. In fact this is how I separate the wheat from the chaff. Someone tells me they are opposed to the war in Iraq. I ask why and what did they think the US/world should have done differently. If they have an answer that shows they have put a fair bit of thought into it and considered the implications of their choices, then I can respect their position, even if I don’t agree with it. Whether it is the war in Iraq or someone slagging unions, I ask what do you propose to do differently?

If someone says I against the war in Iraq and shows that they have not considered anything else or bothered to think about it, then I consider that a “fashion statement position”.

Allan
I have also said that oil plays a big part in Iraq and world politics. But, if oil was the only issue, the US would have been happy to play with Saddam. There is more at stake than oil.

Most of the issues in the ME were created long before the US took any interest there, oil and the cold war did not help. Whether you like it or not, the invasion of Iraq has upset the rotten apple cart, nobody is quite sure where all the apples are going to land. Islam is also at a crossroads and part of the problems in Iraq can be contributed to a simmering civil war that has been going on for hundreds of years between the two major groups in Islam. There are also a number of players that desperately want to see the US fail in Iraq. The two major players are the Iranian clerics and the Syrian Baath party This apple cart was going to be tipped over sooner or later, I suspect that sooner will be the lesser of the two evils.

Regarding all the alleged atrocities going on in Iraq. Most of the US soldiers fighting there are citizen soldiers, many who are fathers, mothers themselves. Do you really think they are going to purposely shoot pregnant woman and children? Do the Americans posting here have no faith in their fellow citizens? I have met and known many American soldiers, for the most part I would say they are decent people who do care and want to do good. Yes there are soldiers who do criminal acts and they should be punished. To bad there is no way to punish the suicide bomber that purposely killed 26 children a couple of weeks ago.

I say right on Colin, Right on. I agree with you.

at this point though, could it be said that this thread has turned into an argument just for the sake of argument?

Both sides pull out numbers and statistics. Make statements of their views of "good" and "evil" and questions or dismisses the other sides statistics, facts, and intentions. People are just talking past each other.

I'm not going to be convinced that the US and its soldiers are evil. It looks like a lotta folks have to believe they are evil no matter what. I don't think I'm ever going to figure out why they need to think that. Nothing will change if people can't look at things from more than just one angle. I guess nothing will change.

Come on Colin, cut the BS, as Rahrichie and others have admitted Iraq is just about oil and big business, well gee what else could we do instead of killing 1000's of innocents and 1800 and countirng US troops. Well lets see, if oil is the big reason were their maybe we should be investing in other industries as even Rahrichie points out. We are investing 1 billion a week in the occupation , thats allot of public money to be a corporate ganster. Maybe we could ask for help from , I don't know, maybe the majority of the worlds countries and people who opposed the war. In fact their was allot of pressure to remove the sanctions which made the US nervious. Iraq was not a treat, it has never attacked a westenm power, it has been in 3rd worlkd status for over a decade now. In fact the reason it was attacked is pure and simple, oil and lots of it. Now I put up some links yesterday on teh site so all right wingers can browse and ask yourslef if its worth teh cost.
A good book for you economic folks is Maverick Marine, check it out.

"Butler joined the Marines in 1898 and saw action all over the world, winning two Medals of Honor, but he is remembered not so much for his military exploits as for his apostasy during his latter years. A statement he made in 1935 sums up the drastic turnabout: "I spent 33 years in the Corps, and spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business." He also said he had been a racketeer for capitalism who "helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street."

Things have not changed that much, not reported on FOX or other MSM is the following big deals going down
in Iraq,

"There has got to be an effective administration from day one," Wolfowitz said. "People need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have to work, the electricity has to work. And that's a coalition responsibility."
The process of getting all this infrastructure to work is usually called "reconstruction." But American plans for Iraq's future economy go well beyond that. Rather, the country is being treated as a blank slate on which the most ideological Washington neoliberals can design their dream economy: fully privatized, foreign-owned and open for business.

Some highlights: The $4.8 million management contract for the port in Umm Qasr has already gone to a US company, Stevedoring Services of America, and the airports are on the auction block. The US Agency for International Development has invited US multinationals to bid on everything from rebuilding roads and bridges to printing textbooks. Most of these contracts are for about a year, but some have options that extend up to four. How long before they meld into long-term contracts for privatized water services, transit systems, roads, schools and phones? When does reconstruction turn into privatization in disguise?

California Republican Congressman Darrel Issa has introduced a bill that would require the Defense Department to build a CDMA cell-phone system in postwar Iraq in order to benefit "US patent holders." As Farhad Manjoo noted in Salon, CDMA is the system used in the United States, not Europe, and was developed by Qualcomm, one of Issa's most generous donors.

And then there's oil. The Bush Administration knows it can't talk openly about selling off Iraq's oil resources to ExxonMobil and Shell. It leaves that to Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraq petroleum ministry official. "We need to have a huge amount of money coming into the country," Chalabi says. "The only way is to partially privatize the industry."

He is part of a group of Iraqi exiles who have been advising the State Department on how to implement that privatization in such a way that it isn't seen to be coming from the United States. Helpfully, the group held a conference on April 4-5 in London, where it called on Iraq to open itself up to oil multinationals after the war. The Administration has shown its gratitude by promising there will be plenty of posts for Iraqi exiles in the interim government.

Some argue that it's too simplistic to say this war is about oil. They're right. It's about oil, water, roads, trains, phones, ports and drugs. And if this process isn't halted, "free Iraq" will be the most sold country on earth.

It's no surprise that so many multinationals are lunging for Iraq's untapped market. It's not just that the reconstruction will be worth as much as $100 billion; it's also that "free trade" by less violent means hasn't been going that well lately. More and more developing countries are rejecting privatization, while the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Bush's top trade priority, is wildly unpopular across Latin America. World Trade Organization talks on intellectual property, agriculture and services have all bogged down amid accusations that America and Europe have yet to make good on past promises.

So what is a recessionary, growth-addicted superpower to do? How about upgrading Free Trade Lite, which wrestles market access through backroom bullying, to Free Trade Supercharged, which seizes new markets on the battlefields of pre-emptive wars? After all, negotiations with sovereign nations can be hard. Far easier to just tear up the country, occupy it, then rebuild it the way you want. Bush hasn't abandoned free trade, as some have claimed, he just has a new doctrine: "Bomb before you buy."

It goes further than one unlucky country. Investors are openly predicting that once privatization of Iraq takes root, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be forced to compete by privatizing their oil. "In Iran, it would just catch like wildfire," S. Rob Sobhani, an energy consultant, told the Wall Street Journal. Soon, America may have bombed its way into a whole new free-trade zone.

So far, the press debate over the reconstruction of Iraq has focused on fair play: It is "exceptionally maladroit," in the words of the European Union's Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, for the United States to keep all the juicy contracts for itself. It has to learn to share: ExxonMobil should invite France's TotalFinaElf to the most lucrative oilfields; Bechtel should give Britain's Thames Water a shot at the sewer contracts.

But while Patten may find US unilateralism galling and Tony Blair may be calling for UN oversight, on this matter it's beside the point. Who cares which multinationals get the best deals in Iraq's post-Saddam, pre-democracy liquidation sale? What does it matter if the privatizing is done unilaterally by Washington or multilaterally by the United States, Europe, Russia and China?

Entirely absent from this debate are the Iraqi people, who might--who knows?--want to hold on to a few of their assets. Iraq will be owed massive reparations after the bombing stops, but without any real democratic process, what is being planned is not reparations, reconstruction or rehabilitation. It is robbery: mass theft disguised as charity; privatization without representation.

A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverized by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country has been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their newfound "freedom"--for which so many of their loved ones perished--comes pre-shackled with irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling.

They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy.

Lynn,

Thank you for taking up the argument against self-righteous violence and Killing for Peace. Your arguments are exactly right.

I had taken Te's advice, and had left to get some things done in the physical world.

I don't know what tarheel's story is, except some kind of brash effort to salvage a shred of support for his need to be "right". But his suppositions are wrong: I'm not in a Canadian coffee shop; I'm in my office in California. I didn't bomb anybody - I was an electronic tech on McNamara's Electronic Battlefield (Igloo White), and before that, on the ground crew at Edwards AFB, supporting NASA's X-15 and lifting body missions, Test Pilot School, and special projects.

My last posting (the war) gave me access to raw war information, before dissemination, before the manipulation. By the time it got to the public, it was completely changed. I was inside the beast, seeing what was really going on, and it was scary.

Like tarheel, I was convinced of my righteousness and the need to teach them ole Commies a lesson - after all we were the United States, and we had God and "right" on our side, didn't we?

Everyone was affected in one way or another. It was heartbreaking watching that system take wonderful, honorable people and put them in a position where they eventually became part of tyranny - corrupted by their very goodness and desire to do right for their country.

That's happening again, but it's not because of mental or moral inadequacies in the troops. The military is concentrated groupthink. There are few if any dissenters in the military, and those who think for themselves, those who question are treated harshly.

Those with service in Iraq will have a terrible time readjusting to civilian life. They don't have to be the killers - truck mechanics, radio fixers, clerks, all are subject to the stunning changes and difficulties in fitting in when they return.

By the way, I have used the term "draft-dodger" here, and I'd like to make my definition clear. Those who fled the draft in the sixties, taking refuge in Canada are not draft-dodgers in my book. I believe it took as much moxie to do that as to serve in our mechanized killing machine.

I save my epithet for the cowards who used privilege and connections to avoid and evade their service to country while publicly "supporting" those of us who went. Flag-waving chest-pounders will always be with us, always playing the system for personal advantage. It is up to us to draw the distinction and make sure others know it.

Those who support this war are slowly losing whatever support they had. Their raison de jour for the invasion can't hide the terrible facts of criminal activity and intent. They have had their way and their day, and soon comes the terrible accounting.

But it's an accounting that all of us will pay. It's up to us to never let them forget it.

Long read but interesting article, sorry about the typos, spell check failed.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

Click on the link for some perspective of how this conflick to being seen in other places, not on FOX news, the above article lays out what is going on it you like it or not.

sorry conflict

I have to go and leave the rest of you to continue. Thanks to all who took time to participate in this discussion, irrespective of position.

Good work.

Thanks gkam , for your honesty and insight. Very refreshing.

Thanks gkam, I echo Stuart's comment to you above. Your compassionate words have added much to this discussion.

And thanks to you too, skepticool.

Here is the link to the conclusion reached just days ago by The World Tribunal On Iraq. It is well worth reading.

Declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq:

http://www.terrelibere.it/terrediconfine/index.php?x=completa&riga=01367

So, it's all pretty clear now.

We just have to determine what the minimum amount Colin, Rahrichie, et/al will accept.

After all this dancing here for weeks the Ladies of The War, if you will, are finally confirming they are willing.

But it is frustrating they still insist we listen to a patiotic melody before they lift their skirts for us.

It's oil they want. Oil at any cost. It's ok to murder when the United States wants oil because the entire world depends on the United States to turn oil into fish to feed the hungry.

Yes once the US has all the oil, Haliburton will put a chicken on every pot in Africa. So, you see, Africa also wants to help America get greased.

We can't let those terrible Chinese get the oil. Or the Russians.

We must stop India from getting it too. Well, maybe not India because it's now negotiating to buy US nuclear weapons technology. They must be the good guys like the other American good-guy buddies in Pakistan.

Anyway, if this is just all too confusing, remember it was America that brought us into the nuclear age, America that taught us about napalm's bittersweet after-taste, America that has saved us from the menace of expansionist Granadians,. . I could go on here, but I think you understand now. America needs that oil and a few 100,000 dead people in Asia, who incidently have been freed from the tyranny of Sodamn Insane, should not be 0seen as a bad thing.

Why are we all being to friggin' negative about the quest for oil?

So to sum up, no one on the right has any new ideas? Just the same old "we're right, they're wrong, leep shooting them till they give up". Unfortunately those old ideas are the reason our southern neighbour is in the pickle they're in.

But of course we shouldn't dwell on such things when China after all did invade Tibet almost 50 years ago. We should still be organising protests on Robson street I guess.

Before anyone asks, the Prussian invasion of France in 1870 was aggressive. I'm going to protest that one tomorrow right after my protest of the destruction of the Nez Perce.

As for the article, let the guy stay. We let in a quarter of a million immigrants a year, what would it hurt to take on a few hundred guys who want to work and take care of their kids instead of going back to the fight in Iraq?

Nice to see the Tyee has attracted more Americans than just the Sean Hannity-loving Ron Erwin. Welcome

As for the old "mind your own business" thing when comments from people seem to object to the US bombing of 21 countries since 1948 (an article in today's Toronto Star), this is a Canadian run site in Canada catering to a Canadian audience. So don't pee on our carpet.

Stuart
If your point is that if the cost of the war to obtain access to oil reserves, then it would be better to invest that money into oil use reduction, that is fair enough comment.

But as I said, this war is not just about oil, hell Saddam would have happily sold oil to anyone that would pay him hard cash. The US could have used the money to buy the oil or the rights to explore the unmapped reserves. I think this war is about several things:

WMD’s or potential WMD’s in the future. (yes, I know your position on this. Even Hans Blix indicated in his reports that Saddam’s regimes was not forthcoming about missing Chemicals and biological agents. It was also clear from his last inspections that the Iraqi’s had intended to build offensive missiles and were experimenting with fuzes that could be used to release agents)
Removing Saddam as a threat to the region
Forcing the region governments to be more democratic
Oil
Putting the world on notice that the US/UK would fight if forced to.

And yes I wouldn’t doubt that George wanted to put the boots to Saddam for his father sake.

This message was being sent to China mainly, but also to anyone else that thought that the US was a paper tiger. In fact I suspect that the Chinese are quietly shelving any thoughts of invading Taiwan for some time

Regarding the privatization of the oil industry, if it does happen, the locals won’t notice a difference, because they have not seen any benefit from their oil productions since around 1981. Iraq pumped almost all of it’s oil revenues into arms and the war effort.

The main reason France, Russia and China opposed the invasion was financial. Each country was owed money by the regime, in fact Russia is owed 80 billion almost all of for arms. All three countries were vying for stakes in the oil reserves and preferred dealing with Saddam and his cronies. None of them gave a damm about the average Iraqi, they just wanted a return on their dollar. If the sanction had been lifted, it would be a long time before the average Iraqi would see any benefit, unless they came from Saddam’s tribe.

Regarding the Cell phone issue, I remember the stink about the network issue and I believe the Iraqi government has opted for the European compatible system.

By the way I wouldn’t trust the UN to look after Iraq’s financial interest, the UN has a very low rep in Iraq, because the people there know how corrupt it can be.

Frank, I like it that Americans are posting here.

Since the initial apologists for W started showing up there has been a gradual balancing of American opinion, culminating recently in more thoughtful comments coming up this way from people like gkam, who has walked the walk rather than running to the White House website to grab the daily talking points.

The interesting point I notice, however, is these American neo-cons and apologists don't seem very anxious to debate their fellow country men.

No, instead they tell us (Canadians) we are likely next to suffer from the effects of terrorism and warn we had better get on side.

We may well be next. The only country that can stop this terrorism from getting any worse is the United States of America, which is the mother all all terrorist outfits.

Exxon, Mobile, Shell, BP. These are the groups that sponsor terrorism

OK, here's my thought on this:

A number of posters have scoffed at this guys story, saying that there is no such thing as a non-deployable unit. Which is probably right. Guess what, this guy was LIED TO. The best thing the US military does is lie. They lie to their prospective recruits, they lie to their grunts, they lie about everything that happens. Why do you think the Army and the Marines like their recruits young (I believe Hillary Clinton was told she was too old for the marines at 27)? They'll tell you it's because of the physical requirements, which is bullshit, as any physiologist will tell you that the human body doesn't reach peak condition until about 25. It's really because that most people at that age haven't fully developed the ability to tell truth from bullshit.

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, any contract this guy signed is null and void. As for the rest of his story, as tales of theft and murder continue to stream out of Iraq, I believe most of it. The only thing I have a problem with is his portrayal of the opposition as some honorable resistance. Blowing up innocent people is not the actions of an honorable resistance. Although I will grant you that Iraq is such a mess right now, that it's hard to tell terrorist from freedom fighter.

Okay Colin, the cost of this war is incredible in dollars and human toll. To sell this war to America was not an easy
task, especially without UN sanction and over 50 million people around the globe including the US saying NO to war.
The vast majority of the world did not feel this war to be necessary. The media ramped up the drums of war and basically
worked over the public for almost a year, the simple repetitive arguments for war.

I have heard all your arguments over and over and over and frankly they are false, when you read my above post and check the facts on the ground you will see that this war is a hay day for BUSH insiders and a whole slate of US corporations, Iraq will be the great neo con pyridine, 100% privatized country with one the largest oil supplies in the world under your control via a puppet government. The control of oil , who gets it and how much is of huge interest to the US.
Oh course the American public would never go for this so they had to scare them for over a year to sell the war.

I have relatives in Europe, when I tell them the Americans felt that Iraq was a threat they would laugh at me. The US
spends as much as the next largest 7 military powers put together.

This is the 21st century, I refuse to admit the only option is war, the only option is to kill 1000's over one person. Iraq
is full of educated people , one the most educated countries in the mid east, if sanctions were removed the economy of
Iraq would flourish, let Saddam get cocky and pick him up at a mid east trade summit, they have the mid east summit every year. If you brought Saddam back in he would show up.

Iraq's did not ask for Saddam , he was installed at a great cost to the people of Iraq.
And to remove him like this is also at a great cost to Iraq's , If Iraq was welcomed back into
the world community you would see Saddam show up more and get picked off, via
arrest or other wise, the sanctions only made Saddam stronger and the people more
reliant on him. I am sure with our security and intelligence service we could have done
the job.

It was because of the debacle of the Castro assassination attempts that the US Congress (I believe) outlawed any attempts on the heads of states.

They certainly tried to hit all his likely hiding spots early in the war, to bad it didn’t work.

Saddam maybe a maniac, murderer, etc,etc but he was not stupid, he had survived many assassination attempts and had executed most internal threats to himself. He took great pains to prevent himself from being targeted. Despite Tom Clancy books, the US was not in a position to take him out, and picking him up at a economic conference is laughable. He would only go to a country he felt safe in and none of those would have allowed a foreign intelligence or police team to operate in their territory. He would also have his body guard and a security detail that any team would have to penetrate. A quite different story from picking up old Nazis hiding in South America.

Stuart I understand your point about the oil and whether it is worth the cost and risks involved. However how far do you think a candidate would go in the Western world, who platform states that if elected that they would cease offshore oil acquisition and would adjust the economy to suit this position?

Even if today Bush stated that there would be no more offshore/ Middle East oil, it would take quite some time to adjust the US economy to the new reality. The US military would have to cease blue ocean operations and constrain themselves to coastal waters, likely the US would rebuild it’s ICBM capabilities to prevent it from being attacked. The US economy would grind to halt with mass unemployment, taking ours with it. It would make the great depression look like a picnic and take at least 10 year to stabilize.

Meanwhile no country would be in a position to occupy the vacuum. China would likely raise to take the lead, but would need 5-10 years to finish their blue water fleet. Russia and India would be struggling to contain them. Taiwan would be forced into join China either by intimation or invasion.

With a large chunk of their market gone, oil prices would nosedive, causing havoc for the oil producing nations, except for Canada, who would be selling to the US.

Stuart
Europe may think they have all the answers, yet the EU is turning into a giant bureaucratic Cluster**** France and Germany are straining with their own ethnic and racial problems and frankly neither France nor Germany were exactly clean when it came to Iraq, France was only interested in the oil and Germany was owed money, plus worried about what might come out about some of their citizens activities down there.

The US has a long record of taking out heads of state, the US does not have the right or moral authority to kill and destroy nations for economic or political reasons, the oil giants are the biggest welfare clients on the planet, we have other technologies and could build up an entirely new industry, the switching over or retro fitting buildings would create jobs and wealth. This war has increased terrorism and increased the arms race, basically the world is a more dangerous place now more than ever. Russia and communism collapsed under non violent means, are you telling me that we had no
other alternative that bombing and using state terror against such a weak nation. I feel sorry for US citizens tarred with this evil act. I am not saying that Europe has all the answers or us either, I just know that we are smarter that the BUSH admin,

This sets a president , should any country bypass the UN and use force if they feel its in their countries best interest.
either economic or otherwise. If we don't lead the way and wein ourselves of oil we are in for endless war and destruction
that will make the UK bombing look like kids play.

The anti Europe thing, was also played over and over on the MSM, they think their smarter , bla, bla, bla.
The fact is most of Europe unlike the US has seen war , not the hollywood or FOX news version.

Colin said :

"Removing Saddam as a threat to the region"

More like as a threat to his own people, and I agree although its not up to the US to decide which dictators stay and which get ousted.

"Forcing the region governments to be more democratic"

I disagree. The best way to get this to happen would be stop helping to protect those same governments from their own populations.

"Putting the world on notice that the US/UK would fight if forced to.

This message was being sent to China mainly, but also to anyone else that thought that the US was a paper tiger. In fact I suspect that the Chinese are quietly shelving any thoughts of invading Taiwan for some time"

I don't think there's a single person anywhere who don't believe the US and GBR would go to war at the drop of a hat. Certainly not anyone in China. Who has gone to war more often than GBR and the US? Who has the world's biggest military budget?

Frank: So to sum up, no one on the right has any new ideas? Just the same old "we're right, they're wrong, leep shooting them till they give up". Unfortunately those old ideas are the reason our southern neighbour is in the pickle they're in.

A common delusion on the left. A number of American conservatives resent what they see as the appropriation of the conservative tradition by ex-Trotskyite neocons. The antiwar.com site is run by libertarians. Ron Paul, a former candidate for the Libertarian Party sits as a Repubican in the House of Representatives. Even Pat Buchanan is opposed to the war. And the Pope was not exactly a left-winger.

The traditions are different here, but former PCs like David Orchard have ideas that find favour across party divides, not only on the war but on sovereignty and the environment.

earthling, I meant right-wing posters on this site. I realize that overall there are a lot of different flavours of "right-wing" as I've said on this site many times over the last couple of years.

But just because the libertarians, Christian conservatives, Chicago-school types etc all have different viewpoints, the fact is they almost(!) all vote Republican. So I think its fair to criticise them based on the guy they put in office, GW Bush.

As for right-wingers outside the US, yes, there is even a bigger rainbow which includes actual fascists and ex-Hitler Youth as well as those simply opposed to a strong support system and many others who are often at loggerheads with each other.

Its a common delusion among those on the right to assume everyone on the left thinks and acts based on a monolithic view emanating from the Socialist Internationale. The left is just as varied as the right. I would say even moreso since my worthy friend and opponent Coyote isn't here to say it for me.

Colin, you have certainly painted yourself into a very strange corner now that you admit it's all about oil.

Tell me Colin, is it better to stir or to shake vigerously when you try to mix blood and oil?

Frank/ Stuart
I do believe that Saddam with the removal of sanction and given enough time would become a threat to the region again, it is in his nature, plus dictators need an outside enemy, whether it would have been the Saudi’s, Kurds or even the Iranians, it is hard to say.

I truly wished that he had capitulated or had been killed early on, so his government could have come to terms. But he had instilled such a fear into his people, that no one was going to act decisively unless they say his body hanging from lamp post. Saddam regularly concocted false coups to expose people plotting against him. Those that were found out were tortured and killed, along with their families. The Iraqi people had reached a stage were they were incapable of resolving the situation without outside help.

You are correct that the US had tried to kill off heads of states, hence the law banning the government from trying to do so again.

Regarding your comments about the fall of the USSR. Regan and his camp, despite their other oblivious flaws recognized the Achilles heal of the USSR and defeated them economically. But they were also helped by a clique in the Russian leadership. That saw the end of the road they were on and decided to end the struggle in order to save their country from total ruin. The fact that most had lived under Stalinist rule also helped. The ending of that struggle without us nuking each other, is one of the great triumphs of the 20th century and having been on the frontlines in Europe, I am very glad of the outcome.

But I don’t think the likes of Saddam would give us the peaceful option, even as a overwhelming army built up on his doorsteps, he played games with the UN and inspectors and only started to comply, when it was to late, He was determined to bleed Iraq to death for his own purposes. Had he been overthrown, the US/UK would not invaded. But as I said this was not going to happen, Saddam was to firmly entrenched.

The Chinese leadership thinks quite a bit differently than a Western leadership, China is becoming a world power and intends to exert it’s influence on the region, both economically and militarily. You can see this in their military buildup and the way they use their economic power. The fact that the US/UK can move a 250,000 man army, support it and fight with it, is not lost on them.

Allan

I was just pointing out the realities of your choices. No matter what we choose to do on the international stage, people are going to suffer. As the UN bickers on the meaning of a word, people are dying in Dafur, the same thing happen in Rwanda. If the US did nothing in Iraq, people would still be dying and being killed. Allan what personal price will you pay not to benefit from the world oil trade?

Colin, Colin, Colin, that's a very shallow question.

But let me try: There is no doubt I do "benefit from the world oil trade", just as I benefit from the sunshine, gravity and your good humour.

I really can't do much to influence any of those sources of personal benefit though. Oh, I can fill up with a tank of hi-test or maybe even try to get onto your good side.

But even if I stick my head in the sand and hide, the sun still comes up every day (where I live), and gravity still sucks as much today as it did when I was a kid.

I also benefit from the goodwill and open and honest intent of my government to help make the world a better place where people do not have to fear being killed so that I can drive to the corner store.

I suspect you would see that concept as naive.

But if diplomacy is a lost art and the hairy arm with the club is back in vogue, then hasn't capitalism advanced us a long way?

Colin, George W. Bush and his cronies lied about the WMD. That is officially why the US invaded that country.

Now the US Administration can attempt to toss a new reason or two into the din of the chattering classes. It might even get a bit of currency among many who seek to justify suffering and death rather than to question the madness.

But it will not change the facts as presented to the world in the months leading up the the invassion when, incidently, the UN was as American as apple pie.

I'll bet Collin Powell is still embarrassed about those performances when he just knew the WMD were there.

If the Americans had been intent on taking Saddam out they or the Brits could have simply turned their weapons on him many times in the decade leading up to this latest invasion.

Both countries have staged an on-going war against that regime since the first Gulf War, again under a UN mandate, if I remember correctly.

What price would be too great to pay so that you can continue on enjoying the benefits of the world oil market, Colin?

During the Vietnam War in the 1960's and '70s, thousands of draft evaders and deserters came to Canada as a place of refuge. The spirit of those times was unique. Canada was confident in its collective idea of itself. Vigorous, youthful, optimistic in outlook, Canada opened its doors and provided a safe haven for U.S. citizens who had come to the same conclusion in so many different ways: it was impossible for them to be part of the armed forces of the United States.
Again, unique the spirit of those times truly was; the consent of the Government of Canada extended to those unsettled individual citizens of the Great American Republic, the "free-est country on earth". Will that happen today? Will the Government of Canada, in its power to do so, provide safe haven and refuge for deserters and draft evaders from the United States? It should, and must do so. But it will not without the active involvement of otherwise uninvolved Canadian citizens. Poor people pay for the pride of Presidents.
What if they called a war and nobody came?
Canada must continue to be a place of refuge for people who figure things out too late.

Letter from an Iraq vet

http://salon.com

Aug. 6, 2005

Editor's note: Following is a letter by Army Sgt. John Bruhns, excerpts of which were read on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, on July 19, 2005.

"I participated in the invasion, stayed for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush told the American people."

I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq war. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some firsthand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American people are being told by the Bush administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.

George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people, that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

We now know most of the information given to us by the current administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an atmosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."

After 9/11, comments like these proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American people to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over sooner rather than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.

I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his administration stated to the American people.

.../continued

The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.
At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.
During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called insurgency. I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was from the people of Iraq, who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.
I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area, west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of al-Qaida or leftover Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilians who wanted us out of their country.
On Oct. 31, 2003, the people of the Abu Ghraib area organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.

.../continued

So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find that his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.

I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.

My time as a team leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "green zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.

Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers, in a way, became part of our battalion, and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the missions we made them a part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.

Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.

.../continued

I left Iraq on Feb. 27, 2004, and I acknowledge a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. The Iraqis cheered, clapped and shouted with joy as we were leaving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.

I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on U.S. and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.

And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table, which is to "stay the course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq throughout the region, and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infiltrate Iraq and kill more U.S. troops.

So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilemma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it, is the question.

We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.

In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to al-Qaida. We know that this was false, and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military, I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with the American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.

Colin, I'm not arguing that Saddam was a good guy. I agree with many of your points. However, I don't care for a world where the US decides Pinochet stays, Suharto stays, Hussein stays for a decade or two and then goes.

So let's just agree Saddam was bad and needed to be toppled but no country has the right to invade another and change the government. If the international community decides it has to be done, sure, that's all fine.

As I said in another thread awhile back, if the US had supported a a domestic rebellion agaist Saddam, I would have been fine with that. Because there would have been legitimacy. Its like France winning the US Revolution, it doesn't stop the Americans from all feeling good about themselves. The Iraqis would see themselves as having initiated and then won the war with US assistance. That's a totally different kettle of fish than a situation where the US invades, topples the government, sets up its own governor like a modern day Rome and then proceeds to sell off parts of the Iraqi infrastructure to US corporations.

There's no legitimacy there and there is no way you're going to convince Iraqis after the fact that the US has only Iraqi interests at heart. The cards have been played so badly that I just cannot see a solution at this point.

Hey Te Aro Ahahaha,

Would you just post the link to these articles you want us to read please? If you're just going to post an aticle that someone else wrote, then this ceases to become a discussion thread and more of a 'cut-and-paste' thread. Aren't there copyright issues with doing that?

I appreciate that you feel passionately about this particular subject, but I want to know what YOU think. It seems like such a cop-out, taking four separate posts to merely post an article written by someone else. Come on, man, don't waste my time.

I have written today to the Prime Minister of Canada and would invite others who share thoughts similar to mine to do the same. -- W.L.

Mr. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx,
xxxx xxxxxxx Cres.,
xxxxxx, B.C.
Vxx 5xx

Dear Prime Minister Martin:

I write as a citizen of Canada on a pressing matter of conscience, the
policy of the Government of Canada vis-a-vis United States deserters seeking asylum in
Canada.

Specifically, I draw to your personal attention the matter of Joshua Key, a United
States citizen, who entered Canada with his wife and three children after deserting
the United States army, as reported on the Internet as follows:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/02/IraqDeserter/.

As you, sir, are well aware, during the Vietnam War, Canada opened its doors to draft
evaders and deserters from the United States who for reasons diverse, yet ultimately
similar, found it impossible to serve in the United States militarily.

It is with equal concern to the difficult situation of Mr. Key, that I draw to your
personal attention also to the situation of Mr. Jeremy Hinzman, as follows:

http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2004/07/02/Soldiers_of_Misfortune_Are_on_Our_Doorstep/.

Mr. Hinzman was denied refugee status in Canada earlier this year; he too was a
deserter from the United States military.

It is important to me as a Canadian that my country extend a ready hand of help to
those whose horror of war leads them to renounce military service. And in the case of
those deserters who have discovered their conscientious objections late, and who have
renounced military service despite the awesome and oppressive legal consequences of doing so in their countries of origin. I respectfully request that the Government of Canada offer
refuge to them and their families as well.

Prime Minister, please bring the full and gracious power of your office to bear on
the the matters of Mr. Joshua Key and Mr. Jeremy Hinzman; extend to them the freedom
and protection of Canada.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,

xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

The lies about the Iraq war just multiply. The US would argue necessity in changing Mr. Key's status to combat overseas. The same argument that they used when they failed to convince most of the world that Iraq was a threat. But once it is coercive it is the same as having a draft.
This generation is too close to the story and will have to wait to watch George 7 escape justice for war crimes.
The misused argument of pre-emtive self-defence is an excuse for murder.

Camgra seems to have arrived a bit late to the discussion. There is no "status" to be changed. You sign up for the army, you get training, you join a unit, and the cards fall.

As for recruiters lying, there is a simple contract. Read and sign. No crazy promises are on there, nor can they be filled in. Read the document, and sign if you are comfortable. Hopefully you do at least the same before you buy a car.

There are a lot of things that the readers of this page seem to benefit from, and not just oil, whether their heads are in the sand or not. Just because you are self-satisfied with your social systems doesn't mean you don't profit yourselves from lesser systems overseas. Relatively inexpensive fruits and vegetables (I'm not sure most food pickers make "enough" for this page). Electricity (hydro, nuclear, oil, coal--all have costs and benefits). Consumer goods (are you sure China meets current Canadian health or employment standards at every factory?). And peace . . . it makes for a nice social and business climate, not to mention currency stability, when you haven't had a war fought on your country's land for 160 years. (Don't give me that crap about the raids during the American Civil War--though Canada did assist with the Underground Railroad, for at least the first few years of the war the British Empire actively assisted the Slave States).

To my knowledge the Canadian government isn't really working too hard to fix any of these situations. So either they are too busy, not listened to, or in agreement with the general system.

Canada is a fantastic country with kind people, nice cities, great history, and lovely scenery. I have been content enough to read the bilge about "GI murderers" and others who learn their "truth" from reading the internet--that says enough to me. But the idea that somehow Canada is a breed apart, that it has chosen not to participate in the sins of the industrialized world, NATO, the Bretton Woods pact, etc is simply laughable. But who am I to remove your delusions???

Its been a great discussion. . .thank you all.

Just to add a little reality check. British troops were never on the ground in the US Civil War. The British government did not intervene in any meaningful manner and the British public would not have supported it. The inconsequential Confederate raids launched from Canadian soil were halted pretty quickly even though Canada had little in the way of an armed force to prevent such actions.

In return, Canada was invaded by the Fenians (many ACW vets) using US territory as a friendly base after the war. The aim of the Fenians was nothing less than the conquest of Canada and then using it as a bargaining chip with Britain.
Please note that you're wrong about the timing, the raids occurred after the ACW, the US was not busy with a war at the time.

Canada is not doing much to fix the problem in Iraq. Fair enough. But then we didn't break anything. But if that isn't enough of a reason then how about the fact Canada had about 50,000 dead in WW1 before the US decided to stop selling to both sides and actually landed troops in France. Maybe we're just following the same line of thinking.

Your speech that Canada benefits from international trade and thus doesn't have the moral authority to criticise invasions of sovereign states is, not to put too fine a point on it, dumb.

And I too believe the US is a nice place. Varied terrain and a well-off and welcoming people for the most part. But the days when the world was all supposed to bow down and praise the "house on the hill" are long over I'm afraid. It is in fact a delusion too many in the US still suffer from.

Articles I post provide evidence and sources which contradict lies about the War in Iraq. Read 'em and weep.

I think that the Iraqi citizens and soldiers who have actually served in Iraq whose testimonials I've posted here are far more credible than the Pox or other sources mentioned by rightwingees here, particularly the laughable Hannity. Opposition to this war and its participants is spreading, not slowing.

Powerbrokers manipulating the government in Washington don't care about the American people. They've milked the US for their billions.

Well I served with the Army there, and I told you what I saw, but I guess that wasnt' credible. I guess different people can have different experiences.

Which just goes to show that no one on this page really wants a real debate, but instead would prefer to find fellow travellers who say things pleasing to their own current opinions. Not exactly a Socratic way of life.

terheelgermany, what you want is democracy. You am on a SOCIALIST page. SOCIALIST=communist.
Free speech isn't welcome here.
Why don't we let this whiner go back to the USA, plead his case before his peers, cross examine ALL of those who can testify to the truthfulness of his assertions, then send his sorry butt to jail.
Wasn't it illegal that the El-Qaida hijacked legitimate users of legitimate airlines and flew the suckers into legitimate buildings where many legitimate American and Canadian citizens worked at legitimate jobs for legitimate companies, AND KILLED THEM DEAD???
Send that whiner coward back to the US for trial, deny him citizenship out right, and send the rest of the welfare bums packing to protest for him while he's there.
Canada will be better for it.
Forget democracy though. I tries that but the lefties won't have any.
Quit whining...it's sickening.

Except Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq.

And the solitary whackos who get all punked and whiny because Canadians keep voting for everyone BUT the conservatives. Of course, we all see what conservativism stands for: an apologism for liars, torturers, war profiteers and war criminals.

Tarheels,

A contract is a contract. And lying about the urgency to change the terms of it renders it void, invalid, or worse. At least ethically.

Your praise of Canada sounds kind of patronizing, and we were an active player in the cold war. Also u-boats bombed the coast of Newfoundland during ww2. Although not in Canada at the time, this brought war to our shores somewhat less than 160 years ago. As well, during wartime in 1917, an explosion of munitions in Halifax harbour killed or maimed thousands. Our experience of war is more recent than 160 years ago, although we opted out of Viet Nam.

First off, let me say my gripe is in no way directed against the Canadian forces, who have served noble causes for the most part with honor.

Now, to the Americans posting here: shake off the brainwashing and wake up.

You say you're tired of hearing about how the war is all about oil. Well, you're going to keep hearing it because it's the truth. Yeah, Saddam was an evil dictator. But guess what, there's plenty of evil dictators in the world who are a lot more dangerous than him. Take Sudan, where thousands are dying right now in ethnic conflicts. A country, by the way, which has harboured terrorists in the past.

Then there's North Korea, a country with an admitted WMD program and which has launched terrorist attacks against our ally, South Korea.

And of course, let us not forget China, which executes more people in a year than the rest of the world put together.

And last but not least, Iran - which isn't really fair, since it had a powerful reform movement going before Bush gave the hard-liners a reason to clamp down.

And of course, there's our allies - anybody remember Pakistan? The nuclear power whose current ruler seized power in a military coup?

Yeah, I know; you'd like to take them ALL down. But you have limited resources, and seeing how you're already stalling out with just Afghanistan and Iraq, it's pretty obvious you've shot your bolt. Maybe democracy in Iraq will survive, maybe it won't, but in any case you've forgotten one of the most important tenets of war; take out the dangerous targets first.

No, you aren't there to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, any more than you were there for WMD's or Al Qaeda. If you doubt me, let's wait and see what happens if the new democratic government of Iraq gives Haliburton the boot. No, Colin, Tarheel,OIF, you are there for the oil. That's it. That is why Bush made sure that the oil fields were guarded from day one, while letting the insurgents get their hands on thousands of tons of high explosives.

Above all, stop expecting a blank cheque just because you wear a uniform.

Don't give me that "we're patriots!" line. Some of history's worst thugs have called themselves patriots. Plenty of patriots in the Red Army and the SS.

Don't give me that "we're serving our country" line either. There are plenty of ways to serve your country that don't involve putting a bullet in someone's head.

The fact is, you are consciously choosing to serve an incompetant, corrupt administration fighting an illegal, ill-advised war. Key posesses a courage that you don't have - the courage to look around and see the real truth, not the truth he's told to see. Cudos and best wishes to him.

Frank
Thank you for your points, yes we can agree on Saddam. I personally believe that the time to invade Iraq and topple Saddam was in 1991, I suspect that things would have happened to fast for the Iraq leadership to be able to prepare for a long insurgency or to effectively oppose the coalition. Also the support for the coalition from the Southern Shiites would be higher.

Part of the problem now is that after halting in 1991 and allowing Saddam to punish the Shiites in plain view of the US army destroyed a lot of the trust and hope that they had of been liberated. Now many of the people who would like to work towards rebuilding the country are afraid of being left exposed if the US pulls out prematurely (a valid fear) so the US is paying for politically expedient decisions made a decade ago.

Your statement:
There's no legitimacy there and there is no way you're going to convince Iraqis after the fact that the US has only Iraqi interests at heart. The cards have been played so badly that I just cannot see a solution at this point.
I do agree that the cards have been badly played and the US administration did not forsee (or refused to) the turmoil of the post invasion period.

In regards to the international community. I used to be a big proponent of the UN, but the abject failures in the Balkans and Africa, has caused me to lose any faith I have in it. Also many of my friends went on UN duty, full of a desire to help and came back bitterly disappointed with the UN and it’s corrupt administration.
That is not to say everything about the UN is a failure and it is better than nothing. But it is a place where the lunatics run the asylum. I wished that they had tied the right to vote or sit on committees/councils to the adoption of democratic values, although I suspect the politics at the time made this impossible.

So I don’t put a lot of stock in the current values of the “international community” and the sanctity of the nation state has been used to shield to many atrocities from justice. I also think the current state of affairs in Iraq will cure the US or the West of any desires to go around invading anymore countries for a while.

I understand your desire for a better way, but I don’t think we are anywhere close to that point. The systems set up under the UN mandate post WWII was designed to deal with conflicts between viable nation states that more or less wanted to abide by some sort of international rules. They have not been designed to deal with the situations we have had in the last 2 decades of the 20th century.

Arrrrgh! Sorry Frank, your quote got mixed up with my reply, we need to be able to edit these posts.

Reading this article, can it be true, Canada has not had a military hero since 1944? Must be nice not to have to fight for the world's economic and political freedom. It makes it very easy to criticize sitting on a nice safe perch in a bubble of safe delusion.

As the great bell of the Peace Tower rang out Tuesday morning, the remains of Canadian war hero Ernest (Smokey) Smith arrived on Parliament Hill to lie in state.

Sergeants from the Seaforth Highlanders, Smith's old regiment, carried the flag-draped coffin into the foyer of the House of Commons, pausing at the foot of the steps as a lone bagpiper played a lament.

The remains of Ernest (Smokey) Smith arrive on Parliament Hill to lie in state.
He was the last surviving Canadian recipient of the Victoria Cross medal until he died last week at age 91 – the number of times the great bell chimed. The medal is the highest and most prestigious award in the British Commonwealth for "gallantry in the face of the enemy."

Smith received the award for single-handedly fighting off German tanks and troops during a critical battle in Italy in October 1944.

We just don't buy that Americans are fighting for the world's political and economic freedom, Rahrichie. We think American military types are mostly deluded, and fighting for a few superrich buggers who couldn't be arsed to buy themselves a proper mercenary army.

rahriche
I got to meet Smokey many years ago. He was quite character, but was always interested in the young soldiers and how they were doing. He loved poking fun at authority.

Rarichie You're absolutely wrong that we've had no military heroes since 1944. In fact, you guys made four of them in Afghanistan back in 2002 when you bombed our troops.

Smitchell

You forgot Korea, numerous peacekeeping mission where soldiers were shot at, saved lives etc, the Medek pocket and the snipers in Afghanistan, not to mention several SAR incidents.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605wardead.htm

This is unbelievable.

As a Canadian who's concerned about this nations immigration policies, I find it ludicrous that some of our citizens are expressing sympathy towards this deserter. Well, perhaps I can add my two-cents-worth to enlighten and educate some of these folks:

This man VOLUNTARILY enlisted in an ALL-VOLUNTEER military establishment. He signed on the dotted line. He was NOT drafted, conscripted, coerced or had a gun put to his head to do so. If this was the case, then maybe he'd get some empathy from me. As it stands, no way. As a former soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces, it irks me to end that some people think the military in both the U.S. and Canada are 'deomcracies'. You do NOT get to pick and choose which conflict you'll go to. If you're told "pick up that weapon, and go to such-and-such place, and neutralize the enemy".....then you do it. The time to say "NO" and object to it, was the time BEFORE you joined the military infrastructure. Whether or not we as Canadians agree or disagree with the war in Iraq is NOT our business, nor our problem nor is it the issue in this case. Rather, it's THIS soldiers problem, and he should have been immediately picked up, and turned over to American M.P.'s for arrest. Let him settle his issues with his governments foreign policy at his own court-martial, with his own own lawyer.

We already have LEGITIMATE claimaints seeking residency in this country, without having to add a self-serving deserter to the mix, who (by his own admission) simply joined the Army for a paycheque, without having had enough intelligence and/or common sense to think that one day he might actually be told to pick up a rifle and shoot the damn thing.

My fellow Canadians....smarten up, give your heads a shake, and get with reality here, okay?

Canuck1

Thanks Canuck1,
You Expressed it perfectly.
Proud OIF Combat Vet

Thanks, Proud vet.

As a personal note, I don't think you boys (and girls) ought to be in Iraq, but I greatly respect you and your fellow troops that have enough guts to go there, and simply do your job.

I hope they all get home soon, safe and sound.

With much respect from an allied, former fellow-soldier,

Canuck1

Home from a vacation in God's Country.

Rahrichie, the troops in Korea performed very well, just because there weren't any VC's doesn't mean there wasn't any heroism on display.

Now would you feel better if we had invaded the Turks and Caicos islands in the 70's and handed out lots of medals?

Just what is your point?

That we should always be at war with those that don't hold the same values?

I think in the last dozen or so posts, everyone has pretty well gotten off-topic, and missed the point altogether.

This thread is NOT about whether or not the war in Iraq is just; it is NOT about whether or not oil is involved; and it most certainly is NOT the venue to either agree with or dispute another nations foreign policies.

Rather, it's about MY country letting in a dead-beat, self-serving deserter, who signed on the dotted line, and then decided he didn't like it and took his toys with him and went North.

I would venture a guess that most (if not all) of my so-called "fellow Canadians" who've posted here, are a kettle of smug, spoiled, clueless, arrogant folks, who have never once in their lives put on their country's uniform to serve. And, worse yet, know absolutely NOTHING about the duties, obligations and commitment involved in wearing that uniform. The closest they ever probably got to it, was watching "Bridge On The River Kwai" in reruns on the History Channel. What you're left with, as a result, is nothing more than a group of "armchair generals", giving commentary on matters they virtually know nothing about. It's kind of like Fred Flintsone, trying to explain and pontificate about the intricacies of how a nuclear reactor operates.

Now, we've taken a pass on Iraq. Okay. Great. Bully for us. Yippee. BUT......if we are, in fact, out of it......then we stay WAY the hell out of it.

And that INCLUDES giving any kind of refuge to a moronic deserter, who came to my country, just because he's got an issue with his own government. I hate to break the news to some of you folks, but guess what? He didn't flee from an anarchistic, third world country....he fled from a place that domestically has something called "DUE PROCESS". And guess what else?? It's TRANSPARENT! It's true. He gets a trial...a lawyer...legal consultation...a jury...disclosure...etc...etc.

And people up here STILL make excuses for him, and write insipid, stupid letters to the Prime Minister on his behalf (someone was on some heavy-duty medication when they wrote that garbage).

March this cretin back to the border. End of story.

Hell, I'll even volunteer to do it myself, free of charge. And after I turn him over to the M.P.'s, I'll stick around, and stay for a bit...you know, make a vacation out of it.

And after that, all of the "armchair generals" who posted here, can get back to actually doing something CONSTRUCTIVE to help this nation out...like, putting on a uniform and picking up a weapon to stand at a post, or donating some legitimate time and effort to combat poverty, drug abuse, unemployment, a failing health care system, and maybe a campaign to bring back 8-track tapes.

Instead of wasting time and energy on a illiterate, lower-echelon deserter who was too stupid to read the fine print.

Canuck1

He's not a dead-beat. He's got kids and a family and I don't believe he walked out on them. I would say he's much like most of the people who have come to the US and Canada over the last couple of centuries. They didn't like where they were and wanted to leave. Freedom should mean your ability to do that.

"kettle of smug, spoiled, clueless, arroga"

uh huh. Who knows how many here have served in the armed forces, not that it matters one whiff. People are free to comment on taking in a would-be immigrant without having served in the military. Although there seems to be a very smug and arrogant assumption that that is required. For what its worth I have served, worn the uniform as you say. Didn't make me any more informed on anything beyond seeing how many guys think its cool to wear sunglasses and recite lines from Top Gun.

But do please go on and tell me how military service has made you an expert on immigration policy. Or for that matter please list the time you served as a general and invaded a country.

I'll get back to you when I'm home again from another short vacation.

Golly Frank.

Maybe without even realizing it, you kind illustrated the whole point of what I said. And oddly enough, in a strange juxtaposition, IGNORED the whole point of what I said.

Contrary to what you gleaned from what I wrote, I did NOT say you have to "wear the uniform" to be informed, or wear it to be able to comment on would-be immigrants to this country, or even that my own military service has made me an "expert" on immigration policy. And again, like so many of the others in this thread, you've gone way, way off-topic about commenting on whether or not I was a "general and invaded a country".

So I'll go through it again....slower this time, as if I'm talking to a 4-year-old, ok Francis? Now here goes:

1. This man was (and is) a deadbeat, k? He left a welders job, because wanted another job with better pay, and signed on the dotted line. After a while, when he found out (GASP!) that he had to go and EARN that pay, those benefits and whatever else by (GASP AGAIN!) being ordered to shoot at people...he decided enough, and packs his bags and leaves. Oh cry me a river. He's a deadbeat. Pure and simple.

2. What is this stupid mentality that people have, when they think that anyone who joins the military (ANY military) that they have "freedom" to do as they please? Huh Francis? Fact of the matter is this: given his circumstances, and according to Military Law, he most certainly was NOT "free" to come and go as he pleases, comprendo?

3. My whole point in saying that the people here hairbrained comments because they've never worn a uniform was intended thusly: One has made a commitment to do a goddamn job. One has made an obligation to DO that job. One may not like or agree with the shit-job janded to them, but that's not the point; the point is, that since you donned that outfit, you carry along with it all the struggles, crap and frustration that go with it. DO.....YOUR....JOB. Ask any police officer. Ask any firefighter. Cripes, ask any MAILMAN, even. And as for what makes me an "expert" on immigration policy? Simply this: I have something a lot of people running our immigration do not have: Common sense (plus I work in Law Enforcement and I'm a taxpayer...is that qualification enough?).

4. Nothing gained from your own military experiences, huh Francis? Well that makes sense. That explains why you sympathize with this leech who crossed our border; it's because YOU are of the same cloth as him: a do-nothing, care-for-nothing, self-serving, lazy-*** twerp, who was probably drummed out of the service because you couldn't DO THE JOB. Good riddance. It's people like yourself who've let this nation fall into rot, because you don't realize that charity (and sensiblity) MUST begin at HOME.

5. I noticed that you completely ignored what I said about what he faces back home. Good. It shows you really ARE an ostrich with your head in the sand.

6. Whether or not I was a general invading another country is immaterial (as I've already said). BUT....MY country is being invaded by self-serving leeches, who can't do their jobs.

Enjoy your vacation.

Canuck1

1. He wants to run out on a job. He's not running out on his family. That's it, Its just a job. Nothing else. So what? You ignored my point about the history of North America being full of immigrants who came here for similar reasons.

2. You're defending a foreign military. I say I don't care. This is Canada, there is no obligations among any of us to the US military. If he can find another country that doesn't care if he wanted to go to Iraq then so what? I certainly don't care. I'd rather we got an immigrant who is in good health with a wife and 6 kids all willing to make their contribution instead of someone bringing in aging family members whose working lives are over and who will simply burden the social support systems.

3. With all due respect you've been on the public tit your whole working life and its clear you're loyal to government, even foreign ones. That's fine. No problem, I'm sure your work is worth it. However, it doesn't give you the right to basically tell the rest of us to shut up because we're all ignorant and only your common sense is what matters.

4. Yes, I was in the military a few decades ago, made many friends but saw a lot of idiots who I wouldn't want near an FN outside of a target range. The military is the same as society as a whole, both good people and idiots. And if I was being fair, sure, I suppose I learned many good things from my military experiences. But I certainly would never claim a holier-than-thou attitude based on it.

5. As for what he faces back home. I'm not sure what he faces and it doesn't matter to me as far as deciding whether he and his family should stay.

6. Since you're not a general either I assume my opinion on this matter is just as valid as yours then. Perhaps even moreso as I pay taxes, I don't live off them.

Hi Frank, I was just looking for a link on some statistics when I saw that some bozo calling himself Canuck1 decided to give us his opinion. Sure glad eveyone else has left this thread as he adds nothing to this debate period. Sounds like just another intolerant person looking to blame eveyone else for his problems. It will become increasingly hard for people to accept the fact that their Government and corporations have lied to them and they don't want to look like they were duped, so they lash out at us "lefties" who are really only advocating tolerance and education. His closed minded view relects hatred that must be deep within...and I'm not a doctor... but I can see the signs of panic or psychosis when presented. Perhaps one day they will drop their weapons and join our cause, for peace on earth..... but history is not on our side. We have a genetic flaw is my take on the species. We don't learn from our mistakes, we repeat them and we are easily lead astray for the chance at great wealth and shiney beads! I can see most of the remaining animal world and the rest of the universe pausing for just a moment and pointing.. "look at that species destroying itself....such a pitty too they made such nice music...."

Francis...do you not read ANYHING written here? Or do you just not GET IT??

Once more, this time with a big, black magic marker:

1. You blather on about ad nauseum about how you'd rather have Canada accept able-bodied immigrants who won't be a drain on our society like this DEADBEAT, and yet you're far too stunned to realize something: this moron has claimed REFUGEE status. Know what that means? That means he'll be entitled to the following: legal representation; subsidized housing; health care, and so on and so forth....AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE!! Meaning YOU...meaning ME...and everyone else in this country who pays for it. And you accuse ME of "living off the public tit". Gawd, you're clueless.

2. No, I did NOT ignore your point about North America having a tradition of accepting and benefitting from an influx of able-bodied immigrants. Once again, Francis, you missed my whole goddamn point. So, for the umpteenth time, I'll spell it out for you: most of those people were fleeing oppressve regimes, poverty, terrible employment prospects, starvation, etc. My own parents immigrated to this country in 1960 from Eastern Europe, in order to escape a style of government where if you heard a knock on your door at one in the morning....you disappeared. Just like that. Now tell me Francis: how does this DEADBEAT compare to THAT? Huh? What is HE running from? Why does HE want to come to MY country? Is he fleeing a third world regime, where there is no free speech or DUE PROCESS or mass starvation? Ahhhh....no. It's because he WON'T DO HIS JOB! Cripes Francis....get with it.

3. Francis...I was NOT defending a foreign military orginization, ok? Wow. Yet again...zoom! Right over your head. He signed up; he joined; he is no longer a civilian; he's subjct to Military Law; end of goddamn story. What is so freakin' hard for you to comprehend?? WAKE UP FRANCIS!!

4. You DO know what he faces back home, BECAUSE I JUST TOLD YOU WHAT HE FACES BACK HOME!! Any high school law student could have told you that. And your whole warped, misguided, naive attitude is illustrated by your moronic response "It doesen't matter to me." Atta boy, Francis. Open up ALL the doors, and let's let ANYONE and EVERYONE in, without exploring the who's, why's, wherefore's or how's.

5. If trying to keep society safe for the last 20 years from the dregs of humanity at personal risk to myself and my colleagues classifies me as "living on the public tit", then guilty as charged, Francis. Hell, I'm even happy doing it for clueless, naive ingrates like yourself. Know why, Francis?

IT....IS....MY.....JOB.

Have a great vacation.

Canuck1

Oh man.

Hey Francis!

Did you see the post just above here from this misguided soul calling itself "clubofrome"??

I read this individuals post (laughing all the way through), and do you know what the first thing that came into my mind was?

F-L-A-K-E.

I mean, COME ON!! LOL!! This looney-tune has branded me a "bozo", "hate-filled", "intolerant", "psychotic".. and then goes on some nonsensical tangent about...ummm...beads....playing music....and THEN says he/she is not a doctor, but he/she knows the signs of these problems!!

HILARIOUS!!

Of course he/she is not a "doctor".....that's because he/she is under the CARE of one!

Heck, Francis, YOU might be naive, ignorant and oblivious to common sense.....but at least YOU aren't this far gone! At least YOU can spell!! (somewhat)

LOL!

Oh man. This is just too funny. (I'm serious here). I mean, COME ON, FRANCIS!

I'll say it again, Francis:

This thread is FILLED with F-L-A-K-E-S.

(Most....not all)

Have a GREAT holiday.

(Bring me back a T-shirt that says "If you're Canadian....show me your Beaver)

Canuck1

I prefer F-R-E-A-K but Flake is nice too. Thanks. The only people laughing are the ones reading your post..... which is Frank and I, everyone else has moved on. I was trying to be nice and show you that there are reasons for your behavior, but as with all who are unaware, you are unaware that you are unaware. (Dr. Harvey Silver) So until you open your mind and let in some truth you will continue to bleet on like the flock of sheep your views represent. Perhaps you and your former unit need to be de-toxified or de-programmed. I'd hate to think loose cannons like you are just wandering around with all that pent up anger and no detainees to work your frustrations out on. Your world is black and white, nice tidy little rules, all highlighted in your manual. You have an answer for everything don't you? The real world is not like that. It's mostly grey and square pegs don't fit into round holes. I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm saying, I truly am.

Oh man.

Are you for real?

Okay...I'll play. So you think I'm this frustrated, anger-driven nutjob that lives in a black and white world. Fine. Then you want to lecture me on what the "real world" is all about. Okay. Go ahead. THEN...you say you feel sorry for all of the "detainees" I supposedly deal with (what...you think I'm working at Guatanamo Bay? Or Abu Ghraib or something??).

I could go on and on illustrating your flakiness (sorry, FREAKINESS), but I'll give you a metaphorical smack by pointing out a few things for you:

1. In all of my posts, I gave very clear, concise and rational reasons (as dictated by common sense) as to why I'm saying the things I'm saying. YOU, however, have said....nothing. Just quoted a lot of sub-standard, nonsensical poetry (topped off with your childish high school pop-psychiatry). I say some people in this thread are misguided, naive, clueless twerps. THEN I say WHY they're that way. EVERYTHING I say, I back up. If some folks, as you say have moved on, big deal. Maybe they said their piece and moved on. Maybe they're just watching. Maybe the ones who ARE nutty, are intimidated, and stay the hell out of it. Either way...who cares? THe point of this is simple: YOU....have NOT supplied ANY rational counter-argument to ANY points I've raised. None at all. Hell, at least Francis gave it the ol' college try, but YOU? Oh jeez.

2. YOU are lecturing ME on the real world? About manuals, rules and regulations? About pegs that don't fit into holes? Well, Mr. Freak...I've got some shocking news: we as human beings NEED some form of rules to live by, k? We don't all live in this touchy-feely, hug-me-close world, where people just plain do what the hell they want. The alternative is mass anarchy. You in favour of THAT? Sure it's a complicated world; sure it ain't all black-and-white. But unless we have some very basic, fundamental precepts to live by....then we're ALL screwed. Did this guy see some rotten things in Iraq? Probably. Was it dangerous? Sure. Is it a "just" war? NOT MY PROBLEM. He signed up. He went. Then he ran. To us. It's HIS problem.... not OUR problem. That's what courts are for. The courts in HIS country. Not mine.

3. Funny how you accuse ME of not understanding YOU....yet you totally ignore ALL points I've brought up. Who doesen't understand who? Who's the "intolerant" one here?

4. You feel sorry for all of my "detainees"?? You feel sorry for rapists, child molestors, arsonists, gangsters, drug dealers and thieves and all-round pukes that I see everyday? Really? Well, Sir....I guess you were right: you truly are....a F-R-E-A-K. Except...when one of these folks someday ever get a hold of you,and turn your moist, touchy-feely little world inside-out....gimme a call. After all.....

It's....my....job.

Canuck1