Should American Deserters be sent back to the US?

[BadCompany]

Here’s one for the guys in uniform who visit this board.

A small number of American soldiers have deserted the US army and applied for refugee status in Canada. Most, if not all of these soldiers, have already served in Iraq, in many cases with great distinction, but they say that the reasons for the war are illegal, that they have been mislead, and that they should not have to fight anymore. No weapons of mass destruction, no link to 9/11 or al-Qaeda, no liberating of the Iraqi people.

However, as volunteers into the army this poses an interesting question. A person who is conscripted into military service can argue that they were never given the choice as to whether or not they wanted to put their life on the line for their country, but these volunteers and deserters made their choices, and then reneged on them. The question is, at what point does a volunteer into an army have the right to refuse an order and/or deployment? At what point does he have the moral obligation to refuse to “just follow orders.”

A couple of interesting articles:

www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20070205_140356_140356

Joshua Key, 28, was a poor, uneducated Oklahoma country boy who saw the U.S. army and its promised benefits -- from free health care to career training -- as the ticket to a better life. In 2002, not yet 24 but already married and the father of two , Key enlisted. He says his recruiting officer promised he'd never be deployed abroad, but a year later he was in Iraq. Only 24 hours after arriving, as Key recounts in The Deserter's Tale (Anansi), he experienced his first doubts about what he and his fellow soldiers were doing there:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/sunday/main2395893.shtml

Before he decided to desert, Colby served heroically in Iraq. Starting in late 2004, he served a year as a medic there. He received the Army Commendation Medal for exceedingly meritorious service for his work while under fire. He said his base was constantly barraged by mortar and rocket attacks and he had a couple of close calls during his year there.

"The rocket landed within 15, 20 meters of where I was standing," he said.

But Colby was becoming disillusioned with the war in Iraq, especially because it became increasingly clear that Iraq, and its dictator Saddam Hussein, was not behind the attacks of 9/11.

"When I realized these people we were killing — 'cause we killed a lot of [them], I saw a lot of dead people — when I realized the people we were killing had nothing to do with 9/11, that's when I was, like, 'Okay, this is not for me! This, ya know, I was wrong.'"

[Disgruntled70sHab]

This has the potential to be a very volatile topic, BC.

Back 1994 my regiment deployed to Rwanda. However, about 3 weeks before that I was promoted and posted out of the unit. And judging how some of my friends still aren't to rights to this day, I felt fortunate not to have gone.

But, it wasn't so much the deployment, as it was how it came about. The timing couldn't have been more wrong. It was following the disastrous Somalia operation and the black eye surrounding that. Many of us in the ranks felt it was the Canadian government's opportunity to use this deployment as a positive after the Somalian debacle. Needless to say it didn't sit will with any of the troops.

However, every one of those men and women donned the blue berets and went over to try and make a difference. Sure, there was griping but that's what soldiers do. In my position, I worried more if I didn't hear any griping from the ranks. Everything from the berets are too tight to lousy rations and lodgings. But, they went in knowing the real reason they were going. They were an extension of Canadian politics.

Now, is there a way to maybe fix this just a little? Well, take a look at how the US advertises it's military service. If you watch these commercials it's quite glorious to serve in the US armed forces. They show you what we used to call, "pillars of herculean fitness" that represent the kind of soldier, sailor or airman, "you" could become if you join. They show you some of the toys; the tanks, the aircraft and the high-tech ships. And, of course, the GI Bill, which BTW, is an excellent initiative right there. However, all this is meant to lure you into the recruiting centre. It doesn't show you the realities of the jobs you might have to assume.

However, the Canadian Forces recruiting adds used to be the same. But, if you watch them now, these commercials actually focus on conflict. And a lot of that conflict centres around the human side of war. In short, the CF is still trying to lure people to the recruiting centre, but they are doing it by showing realities. And some of those realities are still very romantic to many young people.

Should we allow draft dodgers in from the States? I say no. Not because I think they're cowards, far from it ... I mean it takes some nuts to sign your name, agree specific terms of enlistment and then say, "... no, not for me." But, because the USA should handle their own problems and vise versa.

Should a professional soldier be allowed to walk away from a deployment? Well, once you swear that oath of allegiance it's understood that you, as a serviceman, relinquish certain democratic freedoms. And sometimes that means going into a hostile environment even though you disagree with it. It's explained to you right at the recruiting centre. In short, if you sign your name as a just and upright man and decide at the crucial time that you've changed your mind, then there should be consequences.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

Would the debate be different if these guys were deserters of, say, Saddam Hussein's army?

[Skilly]

disgruntled70shab said:

This has the potential to be a very volatile topic, BC.

Back 1994 my regiment deployed to Rwanda. However, about 3 weeks before that I was promoted and posted out of the unit. And judging how some of my friends still aren't to rights to this day, I felt fortunate not to have gone.

But, it wasn't so much the deployment, as it was how it came about. The timing couldn't have been more wrong. It was following the disastrous Somalia operation and the black eye surrounding that. Many of us in the ranks felt it was the Canadian government's opportunity to use this deployment as a positive after the Somalian debacle. Needless to say it didn't sit will with any of the troops.

However, every one of those men and women donned the blue berets and went over to try and make a difference. Sure, there was griping but that's what soldiers do. In my position, I worried more if I didn't hear any griping from the ranks. Everything from the berets are too tight to lousy rations and lodgings. But, they went in knowing the real reason they were going. They were an extension of Canadian politics.

Now, is there a way to maybe fix this just a little? Well, take a look at how the US advertises it's military service. If you watch these commercials it's quite glorious to serve in the US armed forces. They show you what we used to call, "pillars of herculean fitness" that represent the kind of soldier, sailor or airman, "you" could become if you join. They show you some of the toys; the tanks, the aircraft and the high-tech ships. And, of course, the GI Bill, which BTW, is an excellent initiative right there. However, all this is meant to lure you into the recruiting centre. It doesn't show you the realities of the jobs you might have to assume.

However, the Canadian Forces recruiting adds used to be the same. But, if you watch them now, these commercials actually focus on conflict. And a lot of that conflict centres around the human side of war. In short, the CF is still trying to lure people to the recruiting centre, but they are doing it by showing realities. And some of those realities are still very romantic to many young people.

Should we allow draft dodgers in from the States? I say no. Not because I think they're cowards, far from it ... I mean it takes some nuts to sign your name, agree specific terms of enlistment and then say, "... no, not for me." But, because the USA should handle their own problems and vise versa.

Should a professional soldier be allowed to walk away from a deployment? Well, once you swear that oath of allegiance it's understood that you, as a serviceman, relinquish certain democratic freedoms. And sometimes that means going into a hostile environment even though you disagree with it. It's explained to you right at the recruiting centre. In short, if you sign your name as a just and upright man and decide at the crucial time that you've changed your mind, then there should be consequences.

Cheers.

I agree Dis.

I won't go so far, either, as to call these guys cowards ... but a military man has to follow orders. Whether they agree with them or not (but there are exceptions, yes, where they can disobey a direct order ... say ordered to rough up a "weakling" of the troupe, the proverbial "code red") orders, combat orders have to be followed.

My grandfather volunteer for the British Army in World War II. He was station in Northern Africa, and if they were told to do something, they did it. You know damn well the enemy is going to follow orders. The Iraqis are not going to ask if you agree with the war or not before killing you ... so you follow orders, your chances of survival increase.

Those brave Newfoundlanders in WWI never looked back at their commanding officer on the fields of Beaumont Hamel and questioned the order. They were order out of their trench to storm the Germans, the intel was wrong, but they did not question ... they followed orders cause they knew that some had to give their life in combat for others to enjoy life. It is a military mindset.

So, little Joshua, and little Colby now have cold feet .... it isnt the military kind of life they envisioned. That's fine. Desert your country, turn your back on your flag .... but don't come to Canada expecting us to welcome you with open arms and give you the full constitutional rights of a Canadian.

[Cranky]

'Okay, this is not for me! This, ya know, I was wrong.'

Is not this.......

Should a professional soldier be allowed to walk away from a deployment? Well, once you swear that oath of allegiance it's understood that you, as a serviceman, relinquish certain democratic freedoms. And sometimes that means going into a hostile environment even though you disagree with it. It's explained to you right at the recruiting centre. In short, if you sign your name as a just and upright man and decide at the crucial time that you've changed your mind, then there should be consequences.

The only word for "walking away" is.........desertion.

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

'Okay, this is not for me! This, ya know, I was wrong.'

You missed this part: ...when I realized the people we were killing had nothing to do with 9/11, that's when I was, like, 'Okay, this is not for me!

Well, let me ask it this way then; both Key and Colby talk about killing civilians, and in Key's case, possibly raping them. If this is true, do they have the moral, or perhaps even legal obligation to walk away, to desert? If not, does that mean the people convicted at Nuremberg were all innocent?

I guess my question is, what line has to be crossed, in order to make it "okay" for a soldier to desert, to disobey an order? If it's not killing and/or raping civilians, then what is it? Now, it's entirely possible that Key and Colby are merely playing these cards because they are good cards to play, but what if they aren't?

If the US were to invade Canada under the guise of "the 9/11 terrorists came from there" and then proceeded to bomb and kill Canadian civilians, would it be okay for American soldiers to desert then? Or should they just follow orders, because that's what they signed up for?

[Skilly]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

'Okay, this is not for me! This, ya know, I was wrong.'

You missed this part: ...when I realized the people we were killing had nothing to do with 9/11, that's when I was, like, 'Okay, this is not for me!

Well, let me ask it this way then; both Key and Colby talk about killing civilians, and in Key's case, possibly raping them. If this is true, do they have the moral, or perhaps even legal obligation to walk away, to desert? If not, does that mean the people convicted at Nuremberg were all innocent?

I guess my question is, what line has to be crossed, in order to make it "okay" for a soldier to desert, to disobey an order? If it's not killing and/or raping civilians, then what is it? Now, it's entirely possible that Key and Colby are merely playing these cards because they are good cards to play, but what if they aren't?

If the US were to invade Canada under the guise of "the 9/11 terrorists came from there" and then proceeded to bomb and kill Canadian civilians, would it be okay for American soldiers to desert then? Or should they just follow orders, because that's what they signed up for?

My answer would be ... show me proof that your superior officer ORDERED you to rape these civilians. Hard to prove I know ... but I find it hard to believe that they would order them to do that. Now I am not saying that they didnt rape people ... but I would surmise that was done entirely on the person's own initiative. Totally seperate from military action.

Now, if a superior officer did in fact order this. Then yes, they could refuse the order. And I am not a military expert (Dis can voice what actually occurs) but I would expect that there is a recourse in the military for refusing to do an immoral order. Report it, voice your opinion in front of your regiment ... but never never never turn your back on your fellow soldiers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

skilly said:

My answer would be ... show me proof that your superior officer ORDERED you to rape these civilians. Hard to prove I know ... but I find it hard to believe that they would order them to do that. Now I am not saying that they didnt rape people ... but I would surmise that was done entirely on the person's own initiative. Totally seperate from military action.

The night that young Somali boy was killed, the duty officer was informed that the Canadians had captured two civilians who had infiltrated the Canadian camp. They were looking for whatever they could steal and got caught.

The duty officer went over to where the young Somali was being 'interrogated.' After a while he said to whoever was translating, "... tell that little f*cker that he's going to die tonight."

While he didn't mean it, some of his soldiers took that very seriously. The result was a dead Somali.

As for rape, I think you're right in that it would be a personal choice.

Now, if a superior officer did in fact order this. Then yes, they could refuse the order. And I am not a military expert (Dis can voice what actually occurs) but I would expect that there is a recourse in the military for refusing to do an immoral order.

There is a recourse for disobeying an unjust command. However, the soldier refusing to do it better be right. The repercussions of "disobedience of a lawful command" especially while on operations, are severe.

Report it, voice your opinion in front of your regiment ... but never never never turn your back on your fellow soldiers.

They tell you right in basic training that thieves are the worst. The only requirement is that they are still breathing by the time the MP's come to pick them up (directly from one of drill sergeants). The military despises thieves. There was a soldier on my trades training here in Kingston who was caught stealing $23. I remember that night well. Don't know how many times he tripped, or hit his head or ... He got 30 days in Service Detention Barracks in Edmonton starting on December 22nd, 1980.

WRT to unlawful orders. If there was an unlawful order carried out and you, as a soldier, witnessed it, then you are obliged to come forward. If not, you're just as guilty as those committing the act. We had a lad who took off when our troop was in Edmonton. I guess he missed home so much that he took the Grey Hound buses all the way to North Bay before he turned himself in ... 14 days in the cooler.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

badcompany said:

You missed this part: ...when I realized the people we were killing had nothing to do with 9/11, that's when I was, like, 'Okay, this is not for me!

Well, let me ask it this way then; both Key and Colby talk about killing civilians, and in Key's case, possibly raping them. If this is true, do they have the moral, or perhaps even legal obligation to walk away, to desert? If not, does that mean the people convicted at Nuremberg were all innocent?

I guess my question is, what line has to be crossed, in order to make it "okay" for a soldier to desert, to disobey an order? If it's not killing and/or raping civilians, then what is it? Now, it's entirely possible that Key and Colby are merely playing these cards because they are good cards to play, but what if they aren't?

If the US were to invade Canada under the guise of "the 9/11 terrorists came from there" and then proceeded to bomb and kill Canadian civilians, would it be okay for American soldiers to desert then? Or should they just follow orders, because that's what they signed up for?

My answer would be ... show me proof that your superior officer ORDERED you to rape these civilians. Hard to prove I know ... but I find it hard to believe that they would order them to do that. Now I am not saying that they didnt rape people ... but I would surmise that was done entirely on the person's own initiative. Totally seperate from military action.

Now, if a superior officer did in fact order this. Then yes, they could refuse the order. And I am not a military expert (Dis can voice what actually occurs) but I would expect that there is a recourse in the military for refusing to do an immoral order. Report it, voice your opinion in front of your regiment ... but never never never turn your back on your fellow soldiers.

But Key didn't abandon his fellow soldiers on the battlefield, he was home on leave and decided not to go back.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

But Key didn't abandon his fellow soldiers on the battlefield, he was home on leave and decided not to go back.

I doubt you will find many in the military that would consider that different ... AWOL doesn't stand for "Absent Without Leave during Combat" .... granted it would be worse on the battefield, but then again who would be dumb enough to do that. Your unit would abandon you and force you to fight your way out.

Desertion is desertion.

To me that's like saying ... "But Molgilny (just picking a name, the name doesn't matter) didn't defect because he was in Canada at the time during a junior tournament, not in Russia" ..... defection is defection and desertion is desertion.... it is easier to desert your fellow soldiers when on leave than it is while on the battlefield.

[MC Habber]

IF Key's story is true, I don't think he should be sent back to the US. But how could you tell if he's lying? Polygraph maybe?

[franko]

badcompany said:

Here’s one for the guys in uniform who visit this board.

A small number of American soldiers have deserted the US army and applied for refugee status in Canada. Most, if not all of these soldiers, have already served in Iraq, in many cases with great distinction, but they say that the reasons for the war are illegal, that they have been mislead, and that they should not have to fight anymore. No weapons of mass destruction, no link to 9/11 or al-Qaeda, no liberating of the Iraqi people.

However, as volunteers into the army this poses an interesting question. A person who is conscripted into military service can argue that they were never given the choice as to whether or not they wanted to put their life on the line for their country, but these volunteers and deserters made their choices, and then reneged on them. The question is, at what point does a volunteer into an army have the right to refuse an order and/or deployment? At what point does he have the moral obligation to refuse to “just follow orders.”

Pilot who lost legs in Iraq sees husband ship out

Helicopter shot down: 'We are ready for him to go. It's his duty'

Mary Vallis

Since 2004, Tammy Duckworth has lost her legs, lost her father and lost an election. Now she is losing her husband.

An Iraq war veteran, Ms. Duckworth ran in Illinois as a Democrat during the Congressional mid-term elections last fall. She lost by fewer than 5,000 votes.

During the campaign, she became a powerful symbol of the anti-war effort: A pilot and Army National Guard officer, she lost both her legs and shattered her right arm when her Black Hawk helicopter was hit by a rocked propelled grenade in Iraq. During her recovery, her father suffered a heart attack and died.

Three days after her election defeat, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed Ms. Duckworth head of the state's veterans' affairs department. Next month, she will experience the war from an entirely new perspective: Her husband, Bryan Bowlsbey, a major in the Illinois National Guard, is being deployed to Iraq.

Despite their opposition to the war, the couple both support of Maj. Bowlsbey's upcoming mission.

"We are ready for him to go. It's his duty," Ms. Duckworth said in an interview. "What we don't want is for someone to go in his place."

The couple married in 1994; they do not have children. In his 19 years as a Guardsman, Maj. Bowlsbey, a computer network engineer, has never served overseas. He and Ms. Duckworth expected him to be called to duty -- but deployment comes about a year earlier than they had anticipated.

"As a civilian, I'm going to make my opinions heard on election day. But as a solider, I'm going to do the job," Maj. Bowlsbey said.

"I've got 150,000 of my people who need me to take care of business. Regardless of what debates rage in the houses of Congress, those 150,000 people still need me to do my job."

Maj. Bowlsbey will be part of a transportation unit based in Kuwait that will spend much of its time inside Iraq doing advance planning and logistics work.

Maj. Bowlsbey is more worried about what could happen on the home front during his indefinite absence than what awaits him in Iraq.

"I've gotten used to being the one who was there to catch her, even though she hasn't fallen very much."

Ms. Duckworth now walks on prosthetic legs. But mowing the lawn, shovelling snow and reaching mixing bowls off the top shelves are tasks that have fallen to her husband.

The couple are experimenting with grocery delivery services and plan to contract out yard duties during Maj. Bowlsbey's absence.

They are also building a special ramp inside their garage in Hoffman Estates, 50 kilometres northwest of Chicago, so Ms. Duckworth can easily get from her customized pickup truck to the house.

(Maj. Bowlsbey usually gets home before Ms. Duckworth at the end of the day and shovels the snow off an outdoor ramp for her.)

Ms. Duckworth's ordeal on the battlefield has helped her husband ready himself for what is to come. She became a commissioned officer in the United States Army reserve 15 years ago and joined the Illinois Army Guard in 1996.

She trained as a helicopter pilot because it was one of the few combat jobs available to women.

On Nov. 12, 2004, she was co-piloting a Black Hawk helicopter north of Baghdad when a rocket-propelled grenade struck the cockpit and exploded. Ms. Duckworth helped to land the helicopter in spite of her injuries. Ms. Duckworth's left leg was later amputated below the knee; her right leg was amputated higher up. Her arm was repaired with titanium plates.

Neither her injuries nor her lack of political experience prevented Ms. Duckworth from running for Congress just two years after the crash.

And in spite of the outcome, she has not slowed down. As Illinois' director of veteran affairs, she is working to provide health care to veterans like herself and arrange job opportunities for soldiers returning home.

"This time I have in my life is a bonus time. There is absolutely no reason why I should have survived the shoot down," she said frankly.

"I really feel like I was given a second chance, and I have to live up to that."

© National Post 2007

[MC Habber]

There's a difference between "opposition to the war" and refusing to take part in terrorizing defensless civilians, which is not part of a soldier's job.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

There's a difference between "opposition to the war" and refusing to take part in terrorizing defensless civilians, which is not part of a soldier's job.

Agreed ... but the snafu is that some of these "defeneless civilians" are the ones running up and blowing themselves up to take out American soldiers.

When you do not know who the enemy is (they aren't exactly wearing fatigues) then to keep oneself safe, you should assume everyone is the enemy until it can be proven otherwise.

[franko]

machabby said:

There's a difference between "opposition to the war" and refusing to take part in terrorizing defensless civilians, which is not part of a soldier's job.

Note: I am opposed to the whole Iraq thing.

However, terrorizing defenseless civilians? Like, um, piloting a plane into the WTC?

OK, that's the Taliban. Like, um, beheading scores of people who disagree with you? OK, that was Saddam.

If the US forces (heavy on the force) knew who they were fighting -- if the opposition didn't hide behind the skirts of the civilian population (as did Hezbollah) but fought fair (if there is such a thing) then the "innocents" woiuldn't be in such trouble.

as a solider, I'm going to do the job," Maj. Bowlsbey said.

I don't like his job. I don't like the reason for the job. But the question was at what point does a volunteer into an army have the right to refuse an order and/or deployment?. A volunteer who signed on knew that he might be called upon to fight. Period. Whether he wanted to or agreed with it or not.

[MC Habber]

Franko, did you read the Macleans article?

Busting into and ransacking homes remained one of my most common duties in Iraq. Before my time was up, I took part in about 200 raids. We never found weapons or indications of terrorism. I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home, broke everything in sight, punched and zipcuffed the men, and sent them away.

That doesn't sound to me like the job he signed up for. The "hiding behind civilians" excuse is a lame one, it doesn't justify attacking those civilians. If the Canadian government discovered there were armed militants in Toronto blending in with the civilian population, would they emply the same tactics used in Iraq? Would they show the same disregard for the population of Toronto?

[Skilly]

machabby said:

Franko, did you read the Macleans article?

Busting into and ransacking homes remained one of my most common duties in Iraq. Before my time was up, I took part in about 200 raids. We never found weapons or indications of terrorism. I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home, broke everything in sight, punched and zipcuffed the men, and sent them away.

That doesn't sound to me like the job he signed up for. The "hiding behind civilians" excuse is a lame one, it doesn't justify attacking those civilians. If the Canadian government discovered there were armed militants in Toronto blending in with the civilian population, would they emply the same tactics used in Iraq? Would they show the same disregard for the population of Toronto?

Two points.

1. How do we know he is telling the truth?

2. If the US government had intel that Saddam was hiding his WMD or anything in a civilian home would you expect the US Army to walk up to the door and politely knock and ask them if they are hiding anything of significance for Saddam, and then turn away and say thank you when the answer is "no". ??

It is a war .... civil liberties are pretty much thrown out the window. And if you can come up with a way to tell the good civilians from the suicidal maniac civilians from the ones smiling to your face and then when you turn shooting you .... well I am sure the US military would be all ears.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

Franko, did you read the Macleans article?

Busting into and ransacking homes remained one of my most common duties in Iraq. Before my time was up, I took part in about 200 raids. We never found weapons or indications of terrorism. I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home, broke everything in sight, punched and zipcuffed the men, and sent them away.

That doesn't sound to me like the job he signed up for. The "hiding behind civilians" excuse is a lame one, it doesn't justify attacking those civilians. If the Canadian government discovered there were armed militants in Toronto blending in with the civilian population, would they emply the same tactics used in Iraq? Would they show the same disregard for the population of Toronto?

Sure .... The PLQ ..... Trudeau sent the army in didnt he?

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

Franko, did you read the Macleans article?

Busting into and ransacking homes remained one of my most common duties in Iraq. Before my time was up, I took part in about 200 raids. We never found weapons or indications of terrorism. I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home, broke everything in sight, punched and zipcuffed the men, and sent them away.

That doesn't sound to me like the job he signed up for. The "hiding behind civilians" excuse is a lame one, it doesn't justify attacking those civilians. If the Canadian government discovered there were armed militants in Toronto blending in with the civilian population, would they emply the same tactics used in Iraq? Would they show the same disregard for the population of Toronto?

Two points.

1. How do we know he is telling the truth?

2. If the US government had intel that Saddam was hiding his WMD or anything in a civilian home would you expect the US Army to walk up to the door and politely knock and ask them if they are hiding anything of significance for Saddam, and then turn away and say thank you when the answer is "no". ??

It is a war .... civil liberties are pretty much thrown out the window. And if you can come up with a way to tell the good civilians from the suicidal maniac civilians from the ones smiling to your face and then when you turn shooting you .... well I am sure the US military would be all ears.

1. The debate is, what if he is telling the truth? Does that give him the right to refuse to go back?

2. Saddam is dead.

It's not a question of whether to terrorize the civilians or let the "suicidal maniacs" shoot you. There is a third option, which these soldiers have taken.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

Franko, did you read the Macleans article?

Busting into and ransacking homes remained one of my most common duties in Iraq. Before my time was up, I took part in about 200 raids. We never found weapons or indications of terrorism. I never found a thing that seemed to justify the terror we inflicted every time we blasted through the door of a civilian home, broke everything in sight, punched and zipcuffed the men, and sent them away.

That doesn't sound to me like the job he signed up for. The "hiding behind civilians" excuse is a lame one, it doesn't justify attacking those civilians. If the Canadian government discovered there were armed militants in Toronto blending in with the civilian population, would they emply the same tactics used in Iraq? Would they show the same disregard for the population of Toronto?

Sure .... The PLQ ..... Trudeau sent the army in didnt he?

FLQ? As far as I know, the army didn't ransack thousands of homes, arresting every male they saw. To my knowlege, they also didn't beat or rape women and children.

[franko]

machabby said:

If the Canadian government discovered there were armed militants in Toronto blending in with the civilian population, would they emply the same tactics used in Iraq? Would they show the same disregard for the population of Toronto?

I was going to be flippant and be snotty about Toronto but I take that back. It isn't a laughing matter.

However, I am privy to more than I want to be in Ottawa. I appreciate the fact that I am being protected and that my neighbourhood is kept safe because of some of the intelligence. I admit that I would not like my home invaded (OK, I'd hate it) but I am not living in a war zone, so it really is hard to answer.

I also realize that sometimes the soldeirs go overboard with enthusaism and testosterone, which doesn't help.

I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer. It's a war and people are going to be killed. Innocent people are going to be caught in the middle. I just hope this ends sooner than later.

[franko]

machabby said:

FLQ? As far as I know, the army didn't ransack thousands of homes, arresting every male they saw. To my knowlege, they also didn't beat or rape women and children.

Well, there were some indiscriminite arrests.

And are you suggesting the US brass is ordering the army to beat and rape women and children?

[MC Habber]

franko said:

machabby said:

FLQ? As far as I know, the army didn't ransack thousands of homes, arresting every male they saw. To my knowlege, they also didn't beat or rape women and children.

Well, there were some indiscriminite arrests.

But nothing to compare to Iraq, and those arrested were either charged or released. In Iraq, there's no reason to think the people taken captive by the US army will ever be released.

And are you suggesting the US brass is ordering the army to beat and rape women and children?

It's not my suggestion:

All the women were led back inside the house and our entire platoon was ordered to stand guard outside it. Four U.S. military men entered the house with the women. They closed the doors. We couldn't see anything through the windows. I don't know who the military men were, or what unit they were from, but I can only conclude that they outranked us and were at least at the level of first lieutenant or above. That's because our own second lieutenant Joyce was there, and his presence did not deter them.

Normally, when we conducted a raid, we were in and out in 30 minutes or less. You never wanted to stay in one place for too long for fear of exposing yourself to mortar attacks. But our platoon was made to stand guard outside that house for about an hour. The women started shouting and screaming. The men stayed in there with them, behind closed doors. It went on and on and on.

Even aside from that incident, Key says that his job involves watching other members of his unit hitting unarmed men, women, and children. Effectively, his presence supports these actions whether or not he himself actively takes part.

[Skilly]

Not to be picky or try to take this lightly ....but that above account would never stand up in court.

1. He didnt know who went in. They may not even have been military men.

2. He did not see what they were doing, all he heard was women shouting. My wife shouts at me it doesn't mean I am hitting or hurting her.

I refuse to believe that they were given orders to rape and pilage women and children. And even if it was a lieutanent that went in and did it ... they still could have been doing it on their own, and had nothing to do with military orders.

[princelh]

Yes! These people signed up for the military to get free college and took the gamble, hoping for peace time.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

I refuse to believe that they were given orders to rape and pilage women and children. And even if it was a lieutanent that went in and did it ... they still could have been doing it on their own, and had nothing to do with military orders.

But it doesn't matter to him whether there were orders from above (and I agree there probably weren't). He was ordered to stand guard while it took place (whatever "it" was).

[MC Habber]

princelh said:

Yes! These people signed up for the military to get free college and took the gamble, hoping for peace time.

It's funny how people talk about "supporting the troops" and say that they are "the greatest guys in the world," until they want to come home, and then they are villified.

[princelh]

A lot of these deserters never left. The ones who went are the ones to be honoured. The others wanted a free handout for a better life. They didn't get the easy way out, so they deserted.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

machabby said:

princelh said:

Yes! These people signed up for the military to get free college and took the gamble, hoping for peace time.

It's funny how people talk about "supporting the troops" and say that they are "the greatest guys in the world," until they want to come home, and then they are villified.

My old regiment returned from Rwanda in '94. They arrived in theatre after the genocide and were leaving when the retaliatory slaughters were starting up. When they left, they weren't replaced by any other Canadian unit.

Upon their return, the regiment marched into Kingston in a "Freedom of the City" parade. If it weren't for the soldiers' family members and a few grateful citizens, no one would have showed up except the mayor and some city councilors.

Sadly, more citizens showed up for the Gay Pride parade.

CFB Kingston was tagged as part of the last big round of DND cuts even though it regularly balances its books. However, it survived basically because of what the base brings to the city. Yet, while the city of Kingston is a great place to live, it sometimes takes the base for granted.

And the soldiers? They just soldier on.

Cheers.

[razor]

I think that it would be fair if you did not want to be deployed, your jail term was the length of the deployment.

As a former member of our armed forces I completely understand the disdain for deserters. I don't know if it is still the same, but prior to the Charter of Rights, desertion in battle was cause for summary execution.

The Iraq "conflict" is much more complicated. There is no war. The US has not declared war on anyone since WW2. Let's not get into whether or not war was declared on them, because as we all know, Iraq did not have any links to 9/11. Because war has not been decared, the US is using that technicality to skirt UN conventions on war such as the Geneva Convention. That in itself is a good enough reason for a soldier to disobey orders/desert.

Another issue with Iraq, is the use of the National Guard. In Canada, reservists volunteer to serve with a regular force unit that is going to be deployed. The US forces are stretched so thin, National Guard units are being deployed and make up a significant percentage of units in Iraq. The reserve units/National Guard are only supposed to be deployed in a time of national crisis, which arguably does not exist. In my mind, there is a difference between the professional soldier, and the part time civilian soldier, even though both are volunteers.