Let war resisters stay in Canada, U.S. protesters say
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Public_Domain @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:48 pm
Public_Domain @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:51 pm
martin14 @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:58 pm
Streaker Streaker:
martin14 martin14:
$1:
I just want to be clear on your position here: In your view there can never be an ethical basis for a volunteer soldier's choice to walk away from his commitment?
Geneva convention.. after that.. pretty much no..
Fair enough.
ok Streaker, we can talk about this for a long time if you like.....
unlawful combatants.. they do not wear a uniform, they use civilians as human shields.. they do not deserve the protection of a POW status.. any Gitmo people who were captured wearing an Afghan or Iraqi military uniform... no
no POW.. no problem
define torture.. because my defn of torture does not include waterboarding, or serval more steps towards the degrading.. these people are the enemy... they should be treated as such.
poeple at Abu Graib were charged and convicted.
At least we dont behead ours, and make a video of it.. ever seen the beheadings ??
Renditions.. maybe not the best policy
.. but better than beheading.
Diappearances.. out of date.. the terrorists named are in Guantanamo.. they were never 'dissapeared'.. Pinochet did that.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:00 pm
martin14 martin14:
If everyone was allowed to quit when it got difficult, we would not have a military.
I disagree. Not everyone would walk off the job. We would have a military but our military options would be much narrower.
This means where the USA can send a "surge" to help pacifiy Iraq by sheer nmbers (which has worked) that option would not be on the table were 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers to walk off the job.
The consequence of this is that absent manpower our military options would be limited to firepower.
With Iraq as the example, since this is really what this discussion is about, were soldiers allowed to walk off the job then the direct result this past year would've been more Iraqis killed as the US would have been forced to resort to using firepower to offset the shortages in manpower.
In a nutshell, the agitation of certain folks to encourage US soldiers to desert would directly result in the deaths of more Iraqis.
martin14 @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:04 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
martin14 martin14:
If everyone was allowed to quit when it got difficult, we would not have a military.
I disagree. Not everyone would walk off the job. We would have a military but our military options would be much narrower.
This means where the USA can send a "surge" to help pacifiy Iraq by sheer nmbers (which has worked) that option would not be on the table were 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers to walk off the job.
The consequence of this is that absent manpower our military options would be limited to firepower.
With Iraq as the example, since this is really what this discussion is about, were soldiers allowed to walk off the job then the direct result this past year would've been more Iraqis killed as the US would have been forced to resort to using firepower to offset the shortages in manpower.
In a nutshell, the agitation of certain folks to encourage US soldiers to desert would directly result in the deaths of more Iraqis.
.. its a little twisted, but i like it
hurley_108 @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:08 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
martin14 martin14:
If everyone was allowed to quit when it got difficult, we would not have a military.
I disagree. Not everyone would walk off the job. We would have a military but our military options would be much narrower.
This means where the USA can send a "surge" to help pacifiy Iraq by sheer nmbers (which has worked) that option would not be on the table were 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers to walk off the job.
The consequence of this is that absent manpower our military options would be limited to firepower.
With Iraq as the example, since this is really what this discussion is about, were soldiers allowed to walk off the job then the direct result this past year would've been more Iraqis killed as the US would have been forced to resort to using firepower to offset the shortages in manpower.
In a nutshell, the agitation of certain folks to encourage US soldiers to desert would directly result in the deaths of more Iraqis.
I actually agree with you here. We can argue all we like about whether or not it was the right thing to go into Iraq, but the fact is that the USA did go into Iraq, and now has the responisibility to make sure that Iraq succeeds. That's not going to happen if the USA pulls out.
Same with Canada and Afghanistan. We went in, we blew shit up, and now we gotta fix it or make damn sure the Afghans will be able to fix it themselves. If I thought the NDP actually had a shot at government, I probably wouldn't vote for them for this reason. As it is, I feel safe voting for them so they can represent my views on services and economic policy, but I feel that they've got little chance of affecting foreign policy.
Streaker @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:14 pm
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
Regina Regina:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
Regina Regina:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
But don't refuse people from quitting either, that's force... That's a violation of human rights.
Since when
Unless of course, they are a criminal.
A soldier should be allowed to join, on free will. Realize that it's meant for the brave. S/he should be allowed to leave if they realize that they are not psychotically able to handle the military any longer.
Well-chosen words.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:21 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
I actually agree with you here. We can argue all we like about whether or not it was the right thing to go into Iraq, but the fact is that the USA did go into Iraq, and now has the responisibility to make sure that Iraq succeeds. That's not going to happen if the USA pulls out.
Same with Canada and Afghanistan. We went in, we blew shit up, and now we gotta fix it or make damn sure the Afghans will be able to fix it themselves. If I thought the NDP actually had a shot at government, I probably wouldn't vote for them for this reason. As it is, I feel safe voting for them so they can represent my views on services and economic policy, but I feel that they've got little chance of affecting foreign policy.
Same with Canada and Afghanistan. We went in, we blew shit up, and now we gotta fix it or make damn sure the Afghans will be able to fix it themselves. If I thought the NDP actually had a shot at government, I probably wouldn't vote for them for this reason. As it is, I feel safe voting for them so they can represent my views on services and economic policy, but I feel that they've got little chance of affecting foreign policy.
My respect for you just went up at least five whole notches!
Streaker @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:22 pm
martin14 martin14:
Streaker Streaker:
martin14 martin14:
$1:
I just want to be clear on your position here: In your view there can never be an ethical basis for a volunteer soldier's choice to walk away from his commitment?
Geneva convention.. after that.. pretty much no..
Fair enough.
ok Streaker, we can talk about this for a long time if you like.....
unlawful combatants.. they do not wear a uniform, they use civilians as human shields.. they do not deserve the protection of a POW status.. any Gitmo people who were captured wearing an Afghan or Iraqi military uniform... no
no POW.. no problem
define torture.. because my defn of torture does not include waterboarding, or serval more steps towards the degrading.. these people are the enemy... they should be treated as such.
poeple at Abu Graib were charged and convicted.
At least we dont behead ours, and make a video of it.. ever seen the beheadings ??
Renditions.. maybe not the best policy
.. but better than beheading.Diappearances.. out of date.. the terrorists named are in Guantanamo.. they were never 'dissapeared'.. Pinochet did that.
I guess this is the nub of the whole question: Has the US violated the terms of the Geneva Convention?
There is reason to believe that it has, even though the situation may contain some ambiguities. Thus, there might be sufficient reason to give these resisters the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to stay in Canada.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:22 pm
Streaker Streaker:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
Regina Regina:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
Regina Regina:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
But don't refuse people from quitting either, that's force... That's a violation of human rights.
Since when
Unless of course, they are a criminal.
A soldier should be allowed to join, on free will. Realize that it's meant for the brave. S/he should be allowed to leave if they realize that they are not psychotically able to handle the military any longer.
Well-chosen words.
I was thinking much the same.
martin14 @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:24 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Streaker Streaker:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
Regina Regina:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
Regina Regina:
Bill_Hicks Bill_Hicks:
But don't refuse people from quitting either, that's force... That's a violation of human rights.
Since when
Unless of course, they are a criminal.
A soldier should be allowed to join, on free will. Realize that it's meant for the brave. S/he should be allowed to leave if they realize that they are not psychotically able to handle the military any longer.
Well-chosen words.
I was thinking much the same.
Freudian slip, perhaps
martin14 @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:31 pm
$1:
I guess this is the nub of the whole question: Has the US violated the terms of the Geneva Convention?
There is reason to believe that it has, even though the situation may contain some ambiguities. Thus, there might be sufficient reason to give these resisters the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to stay in Canada.
There is reason to believe that it has, even though the situation may contain some ambiguities. Thus, there might be sufficient reason to give these resisters the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to stay in Canada.
maybe the better question is has the Taliban and Al Quaida
ever read the Geneva convention, except in Guantanamo Bay, of course.
I agree about the ambiguities, though.. they may not have explicity broken it, but they have gotten close
However, might be sufficient reason is not enough for me.
Until convicted, the US is presumed innocent
(you would challenge that ?)
and I dont think these soldiers have leg to stand on.
they should be sent home immediately.
That is my opinion.
martin14 @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:32 pm
and since it is now 12:30am here.. im off to bed.. can pick it up tomorrow.. g'night all..
BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:32 pm
Streaker Streaker:
I guess this is the nub of the whole question: Has the US violated the terms of the Geneva Convention?
There is reason to believe that it has, even though the situation may contain some ambiguities. Thus, there might be sufficient reason to give these resisters the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to stay in Canada.
There is reason to believe that it has, even though the situation may contain some ambiguities. Thus, there might be sufficient reason to give these resisters the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to stay in Canada.
No, the US has not violated the Geneva Conventions. Every uniformed Iraqi soldier was properly accorded their rights under the convention and then some. Many former Iraqi soldiers who assisted in finding hidden weapons and aircraft just before and after the end of the war have been granted US residency for themselves and their families at US expense.
Iraqis captured fighting in Iraq are accorded their rights under local laws and are turned over to local authorities for a fair trial and a nice hanging.
Non-Iraqi non-uniformed terrorists captured in Iraq fighting without the consent of any legitimate government are not accorded any more rights than they should be and, IMHO, that's still too much.
According to the same Geneva Conventions you want to bash us over the head with these people are legitimately spies and we are within our rights to summarily execute them.
Since you get all upset over their being waterboarded perhaps you want us to obey the GC and execute them then?
Public_Domain @ Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:41 pm
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next