Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - U.S. soldier who fled to Canada, flees again

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

U.S. soldier who fled to Canada, flees again
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Hey Meegook: you forgot to reference the UN Resolution number, you know, where the UN acted as a body to condemn the United States.

There wasn't one? Oh yeah, then. I see your point. You are right. Annan sure has said some interesting things over the years to the press corps...

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

NAVFC wrote:

...there has never been an official ruling stating the US war was illegal. Not even a UN censure...

You should probably not mention this to anyone on the far left. Just as anyone who disagrees with them is usually either a nationalist drone, a tool of the Zionist lobby, a racist, or a biggot, they, and they alone, are the holy interpreters of what is legal, moral, and justifiable or not in national and world affairs.

Cross them and you secure their unrelenting wrath against you for all time...

Gopher, though I agree that he enlisted and should serve, the war was a clear violation of the U.N. Charter. A nation is allowed to attack another in self-defence, but there was no substantiation of Iraq ever attacking the U.S. There is not forthcoming evidence of the U.S. ever being attacked directly by Iraq without it being attacked first. It clearly does violate the U.N. Charter. Just because the U.S. government engaged in the war does not mean it is okay.

The U.N. simply cannot penalize the U.S. government. Governments that commit wrong actions such as North Korea would be sanctioned, in some cases, if they do something wrong. The U.S. government is supposed to contribute 25% of the U.N. budget. Who is going to censure Uncle Sam? It is on the Security Council. That works far less than the GOP policing the wrong doing of their own members. It is not realistic. Just because some state government was not censured does not mean that the state in question was not engaged in a violation. The U.S. government cannot use Chapter 7 to justify the attack on Iraq. It cannot be substantiated under scrutiny.

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Suppose I am driving 80 miles an hour in a 55 mile zone and it clearly says on the books that is a violation, but I happen to be a very important person in the town in which I committed the infraction, and I do not get prosecuted for it nor do I get censured is still a violation. You are saying it is not illegal since I was not held accountable. However, other states would be held accountable for invading another U.N. state like Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Do you see the point? Essentially, in the case of the Iraq, the Iraqi government came up with excuses as to how Kuwait was harming Iraq and then invaded. It was told it violated U.N. law and Kuwait was liberated. The WMD argument was not substantiated to be a credible threat to a world power like the U.S. or even to Iran or Syria who could have easily repulsed a weakened Iraq.

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Let's see the UN resolution giving the okay to attack Iraq.

The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, and later China all signaled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq.[8][9]

# ^ "US, Britain and Spain Abandon Resolution", Associated Press, 2003-03-17. Retrieved on 2006-08-06.
# ^ "Bush: Iraq is playing 'willful charade'", CNN, 2003-03-07. Retrieved on 2006-08-06.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
[quote]

Quote:

You are saying it is not illegal since I was not held accountable.

I've said no such thing. Gopher is I think, but not I. The US is the 'World's Bully' at this time and is going to do whatever it damn well please, no matter what anyone says or thinks.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject:

Adventurer: I have never supported this war; I have always found it an unjust war.

However, NAVFC stated a simple fact:

Quote:

...there has never been an official ruling stating the US war was illegal. Not even a UN censure...

My criticism of the left and esp. the far left, is an old one. You may or may not be aware, for example, that Leopold Labedz succeeded in attacking and fatally undermining E.H. Carr and Issac Deutscher's work on Stalin and Soviet Russia in his The Use and Abuse of Sovietology.

Labedz showed, in painstaking detail, how these two leftists carelessly handled evidence and facts -- indeed, they chronically bent facts -- and produced what amounted to sophisticated apologia for Stalin and Soviet Russia. Their works have since been relegated to interesting "period pieces" by most serious scholars...

This careless handling of facts and data is perhaps best illustrated in Foucault's Madness and Civilization, where, as you may already know, Foucault talks about a "Great Confinement" that he says occurs in the seventeenth century. But historians who knew better scratched their heads and wondered how he could be so far off in his handling of facts: this confinement did not occur until the nineteenth century. And this fact was central to his case on how and when such phenomena occurred...

However this may be, this is more of the same. NAVFC asserted a simple, but true statement. No one here is able to refute it anymore than I would refute a claim that this was an unjust war. Yet there is much excitement and accusation, and, I predict it is only a matter of time before someone quotes NAVFC and shrilly screams "Weapons of mass destruction!" as if that will settle the issue, and indeed all issues facing the known universe... Rolling Eyes

Why do leftists have such a hard time with simple data-based discussions, making it nearly impossible to talk with them about anything that is not voiced as an antiEstablishment allegation?

So, then, has there ever been an official ruling stating the U.S. was was "illegal," in the UN, or in any nation-state's legislature for that matter? Has any govt officially condemned the U.S. for this or not?

Since the 1500s, the issue, by the way, has been whether any govt's war was "just." Calling any war "legal" or "illegal" strikes me as extremely problematic, in an already problematic international arena, where it really still is something of a chaotic schoolyard playground...

Last edited by Gopher on Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject:

Adventurer wrote:

Canuckistan, I am in accord with you that one must consult one's conscience when serving in war. Yet, I do have a question. How many wars have soldiers where one doesn't see another soldier kill a civilian? It happens in every conflict. You might argue that the difference is that the U.S. government has ignored atrocities or war crimes by soldiers until CDs with photos come to surface. The military has covered up too many things. Also, the Iraq War violates the international law. However, it does not clearly violate the U.S. Constitution as Meegook stated. If this soldier was given the impression he would get a less than honourable discharge, and he has proof of that, then he should leave the U.S. and make Canada his home.

Half of Canadians do not want the soldiers in Afghanistan. I am sure some civilians have been killed by members of the NATO forces.
What if a Canadian soldier decides not to serve? Would you oppose his court-martial, even though the said soldier is not a pacifist per se?

Well, I have served in the Canadian military. You confuse morality and pacifism. Sure, you could say I'm a pacifist, but I'd have no qualms killing an enemy combatant. Killing civilians would be out of the question.
You see, it was always stressed to us to ignore orders that we felt were immoral (I served shortly after the Somalia Inquiry). Orders that result in the death of civilians were always used to make that point come across. So, if a soldier has grounds to argue that serving in war is an immoral act because of rampant civilian deaths, I'd back him in his decision. Besides, it's estimated that there have been 500 000 Iraqui civilians that have died as a result of the war. Think about that. It isn't just a few civilians we are talking about here.

I think the American soldier has got international law on his side. According to the Geneva Convention, civilian deaths are never acceptable.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:43 pm; edited 2 times in total

NAVFC

Joined: 10 May 2006

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject:

megook are you suggesting soldiers be allowed to pick their wars?

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject:

NAVFC wrote:

megook are you suggesting soldiers be allowed to pick their wars?

If they can make a strong arguement that a war is immoral, probably yes.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject:

NAVFC wrote:

megook are you suggesting soldiers be allowed to pick their wars?

And you are surprised that someone (indeed a group of them on this forum) would advocate such a Marxist or indeed anarchistic worldview, where all chains of command and all organizations and systems should simply dissolve so that Eden can rise again...?

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject:

NAVFC wrote:

megook are you suggesting soldiers be allowed to pick their wars?

Have you read "War is a Racket?" By General Smedley

I think it's safe to suggest that Rumsfeld didn't listen to his generals.

I think it's safe to suggest that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think it's safe to suggest that Iraq didn't have WMD.

I think it's safe to suggest that Iraq was a mistake.

I think it's safe to suggest that Congress didn't declare war on Iraq.

I think it's safe to suggest that the UN didn't issue a resolution to attack Iraq.

I think it's safe to suggest that the US military has the sworn duty and obligation to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

I think it's safe to suggest that the soldiers have a moral and dutiful obligation to choose to refuse to obey orders that go against that sworn obligation to defend the Constitution.

Yes, come to think of it, wouldn't it be nice if the soldiers refused to fight in an illegal war?

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

Have you read "War is a Racket?" By General Smedley

Butler's book has nothing at all to do with the current war or even the Middle East generally. Do stay on point, please.

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that Rumsfeld didn't listen to his generals.

More or less. Rumsfeld is incompetent. This comes through in Cobra II quite clearly, for example.

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I agree that Saddam was not involved, probably not in any way whatsoever, in perpetrating 9/11.

I think what you say here, however, is not entirely true, either. Saddam associated himself with 9/11 after the fact by snubbing America and Americans, in his open letters "to the American peoples"...

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1172306

If you recall, earlier in the 1990s, Saddam also attempted to assassinate H.W. Bush.

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Now it is. But in 2001-2003 it was not clear.

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that Iraq was a mistake.

Of course it was.

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that Congress didn't declare war on Iraq.

No, it is not safe to assume such an unambiguous thing.

H.J.Res. 114 passed the House 296-133, and by the Senate 77-23.

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that the UN didn't issue a resolution to attack Iraq.

The UN did not attack Iraq. The United States and Britain (and undisclosed allies) did.

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that the US military has the sworn duty and obligation to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

Yes. So what?

Meegook wrote:

I think it's safe to suggest that the soldiers have a moral and dutiful obligation to choose to refuse to obey orders that go against that sworn obligation to defend the Constitution.

Yes. So what?

Meegook wrote:

Yes, come to think of it, wouldn't it be nice if the soldiers refused to fight in an illegal war?

But you have failed to established that this was an illegal war.

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Butler's book has nothing at all to do with the current war

Sure does. Look at how much money is being made in the Iraqi war by Bush and Bush's cronies. Nothing to do with the 'current war?' LMHO

Quote:

Now it is. But in 2001-2003 it was not clear.

LMHO

Quote:

H.J.Res. 114 passed the House 296-133, and by the Senate 77-23.

a resolution is not a declaration. The law of the land, the Constitution calls for a Declaration of war, by CONGRESS, not the President, not a resolution, and for good reason, for which we will not go into here.

The Iraqi war is illegal because it wasn't a declared war by Congress.

Simple as that. We should have learned that lesson back in the 1960s and 1970s. We didn't.

Quote:

Yes. So what?

The military, the Congress and the president of the US have a sworn obligation to uphold and defend the US Constitution, which they are clearly not doing and you say -

Yes, so what?

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

The military, the Congress and the president of the US have a sworn obligation to uphold and defend the US Constitution, which they are clearly not doing and you say -

Yes, so what?

Yes. So what? Your assertion has nothing at all to do with the W. Bush Administration.

Has the President failed to respect or moved against Congress or the Supreme Court? Has Congress or the Supreme Court moved against him but he circumvented or shut them down? Has he established a tyranny and refused to step down from office?

What has W. Bush done to subvert the U.S. Constitution or anything else for that matter that would justify the revolution or the military coup d'etat that you and others are proposing, at least implicitly, here?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

Butler's book has nothing at all to do with the current war

Sure does. Look at how much money is being made in the Iraqi war by Bush and Bush's cronies. ?

How much money are they making? Numbers and sources for those numbers please.

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

Butler's book has nothing at all to do with the current war

Sure does. Look at how much money is being made in the Iraqi war by Bush and Bush's cronies. ?

How much money are they making? Numbers and sources for those numbers please.

This is too easy:

Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report

Monday, January 31, 2005

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.

"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.

"The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.

The money came from revenues from the United Nations' former oil-for-food program, oil sales and seized assets -- all Iraqi money. The audit did not examine the use of U.S. funds appropriated for reconstruction. (Full story)

Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll."

And the guy responsibile for the missing BILLIONS get's a medal! From the president.

Paul Bremer received a Presidential Medal of Freedom in December for his work in Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

Don't you know how to Google?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe