| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Two War Dodgers To Be Sent Back To Us; What is our responsibility? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 8 2006, 03:41 PM (962 Views) | |
| brewster | Feb 10 2006, 04:56 PM Post #61 |
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
It's been interesting listening to the debate, especially since at the beginning I really wasn't sure. Now I think I DO know... On purely legal grounds, I think we pretty much have to send them back. They volunteered (no matter what economic, etc. pressure was put on them) then deserted. That makes them criminals in the US. We have no outstanding charges against them, so our courts have no call to hold them. Their claim of asylum doesn't hold much water, as they're not likely to face threats on their life, etc. About the worst they could get is a dishonourable discharge, certainly not a good thing, but not torture. Morally, although Canada does not approve of the war in Iraq, we have never made any official statements as to its being illegal or immoral, as far as I know. And keeping them here with no strong justification leaves wide open to the same type of thing in return, not just from the US, but other countries as well... And besides, do they seem like the type of immigrants we want??? Where's those bus tickets??? |
 My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
 |
 
|
| CalRed | Feb 11 2006, 07:17 PM Post #62 |
Member
|
I can't believe anyone could even imagine this is an unjust war. After 12 years of running off inspectors and thumbing his nose at the UN Saddam had to be reigned in. How many resolutions did the UN make? Ridiculous. There are at least three very good reasons this is a "just" war. 1. To enforce compliance with the United Nation resolutions he had been openly flaunting while ignoring the agreed requirements imposed on Iraq by the UN. Remember this was done after Desert Storm which was brought about by Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. 2. Preemptive action to keep Iraq from using the WMDs we all know they had because he had already used them and the United Nations inspectors had found rockets that were illegal and destroyed only part of them. No one knows what happened to the rest of them. Probably Iraq would have had nuclear weapons by now had we not gone in. 3. To change regimes, removing Saddam and punish him for his crimes against humanity and replacing his regime with a government that is more free, democratic and respectful of human rights and chosen by the people of Iraq. Anyone who can't see that as being just must be wearing blinders. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
|
|
|
| brewster | Feb 11 2006, 08:26 PM Post #63 |
|
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
Sorry, Cal, someone's wearing blinders allright, but it's not who you think...
Let's face it, in the final analysis, it was the US that ran off the UN inspectors. Everything else was just Saddam rattling sabres. It goes on regularly, especially in the Arab world. In fact, the worst thing happening to the average Iraqi was the lack of food and other supplies brought on by the UN Embargo, and several countries' "Oil for Food" scam. As it turned out, the only flaunting he did was verbal. There WERE NO WMD's found, either before the war or after. And you can't keep going back to old wars - Kuwait is OVER. Or maybe you'd like to say it was all Babylon's fault for deporting the Israelites? Nonsense - all speculation. The WMD's he used were long gone. Old wars again. That would be great, if he was the worst... Why do you let N Korea go on? Bush lied. |
|
My Favourite Campsite Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
|
|
|
| cmoehle | Feb 12 2006, 07:58 AM Post #64 |
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Well, I don't believe he lied, just a bit faith-based in his reasoning, which type of reasoning is fallaciously error prone. "Anyone who can't see that as being just must be wearing blinders." is another type of fallacy known as poisoning the well. It masks a weak argument with a diversion, hoping if you have another view, you'll get lost in the diversion before you can present that view. Cal, Just War Theory is not the same as just war and neither of these are the same as a legal war. What you've done is provide reasons you believe justified invasion. But Just War Theory, as Buddy was trying to say, is based upon a given set of principles. A sort of guide to what justifies war. The Bush Administration addressed this I believe--I'll try to find it. But neigther justification is relevant to the Canadian Court's legal question. For that we would need to look at Canadian law and agreements between CA and the US. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
|
|
|
| bikemanb | Feb 12 2006, 08:35 AM Post #65 |
Liberal Conservative
|
I don't know what people think, that they are going to draw this extra money and play army? These people joined and signed a contract, they are now law breakers and should be treated as such. Unlike Nam they are not conscripts that had no choice. You sign your name, then you live up to your obligation. |
|
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. Benjamin Franklin | |
|
|
|
| CalRed | Feb 12 2006, 11:56 AM Post #66 |
|
Member
|
I believe that every point in that article was met. Which ones were not? |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
|
|
|
| cmoehle | Feb 12 2006, 12:22 PM Post #67 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Bruce countered everything you said. In addition, Just War Theory is a theory of restraint not pre-emptive aggression. Besides, isn't that irrelevant to the legal question posed here? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
|
|
|
| CalRed | Feb 12 2006, 01:05 PM Post #68 |
|
Member
|
Brewster Don't let the facts get in your way. Is it possible you just didn't know what was going on then or have you just forgotten? Saddam stopped the inspectors so many times it became a joke.
In the summer of 1992 the a team of inspectors from several countries was assembled and went in under the control of the Security Council. They were following UN Resolution 687 among others, to inspect a known site of Iraq's reconstitution of their weapons programs. There were millions of pages of documents that clearly proved the program of reconstitution had begun. The intelligence on these documents were confirmed as accurate. This was known as the "Agricultural Ministry Incident." The location was surrounded by the inspection team because the Iraqis would not give them access. The team decided to allow no one in or out until the Iraqis cooperated. The Iraqi Security forces started demonstrations against the inspectors, stoning vehicles, egging them and throwing vegetables at the vehicles and occupants. They were shaking the cars and causing a very dangerous atmosphere for the inspection team. This went on for days until a person tried to stab a team member through an open window and the UN Security Council would give no help at all. At that point the lives of the inspectors were put at risk and the team was pulled out. Inspections were stopped by the Iraqis many times during the 12 years after Desert Storm. When Saddam refused them access, in many cases, the teams were finally pulled out. Clinton even pulled them out one time because Saddam said he didn't want them there. They were constantly intimidated and harassed and kept from doing their jobs. The only time they were ever allowed to inspect was when Saddam had set up a place special for them.
In July of 1998 Iraq seized an Iraqi Air Force document showing that Iraq had misrepresented the claimed destruction of over 6,000 bombs which contained over 700 tons of a chemical nerve agent. They refused to surrender the document to the UN. The UN inspectors found nerge agent residue on Iraqi SCUD missile warhead fragments and determined Iraq had the know how to produce over 200 tons of a nerve gas called VX. Iraq never accounted for 500 tons of SCUD propellant and over 40 SCUD biological warheads. In 1995 Iraqis claimed to have participated in trials of R-400 bombs filled with biological agents. Saddam denied any such trials. In September 1995 Iraq admitted the existence of two projects involving Mirage F-1 and MIG-21 aircraft and chemical weapons and there is no evidence that such projects were ever discontinued. Even though UN Resolutions 707, 715 and 1051 stipulated that Iraq must provide full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its nuclear, chemical, biological and long-range missile program weapons programs and allow unconditional inspection access, agree to not conceal any attempts to move or destroy any material or equipment without UN sanction, they have not complied. Iraq never provided any evidence of destruction of any biological weapons although there was evidence they had them because they had used them on their own people. In addition: Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun January 26, 2006 The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. You won't see this in the New York Times probably but you can read it here: Saddam Had WMDs
Do you not know of the thousands of his own people, some say millions, Saddam had massacred? Have you not read of the thousands of mass graves that have been unearthed, most with children in them? It is thought that the number of his own people he has killed could be 10 million. That is almost as many as Hitler and 1/4 the number that Stalin had slaughtered. Do you remember the City of Halabja where Saddam poisoned 200,000 Kurds and many thousands more are still suffering as a result? Saddam was said to have thought of that as just "practice" for the real event of destroying the Kurds when he would get them all. What would this man have done with nuclear weapons? North Korea is probably developing nuclear weapons but there is no evidence of mass atrocities there as in Iraq. However I am certain we will deal with North Korea in due time but we are still trying the political route. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
|
|
|
| cmoehle | Feb 12 2006, 01:15 PM Post #69 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
An Auschwitz in Korea, Auschwitz Under Our Noses, A modern Auschwitz, The North Korean Holocaust. Yes. Holocaust. What's missing in North Korea is oil: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A following IISS Asia Security Conference. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
|
|
|
| cascade | Feb 12 2006, 03:05 PM Post #70 |
|
Lloyd...Michie,Tennesse
|
Chris I don't think it is so much the oil factor in North Korea as it is the China factor. |
|
"[Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." --John Adams | |
|
|
|
| cmoehle | Feb 12 2006, 03:14 PM Post #71 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Yes, iirc, China, to get along with its free-market neighbors, has turned agaist North Korea, so that has a large effect on the situation. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
|
|
|
| brewster | Feb 12 2006, 04:15 PM Post #72 |
|
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
I don't want to extend this too long, it's been discussed to death, but a couple of points...
Canada has the know how, the necessary materials, and the advanced technology to produce atomic weapons on a massive scale. We have more uranium than the US, and the plants to process it are already built. But we have never done so. Having the knowledge and actually using it are entirely different things. If the US starts attacking every country that can produce nerve agents, whether they have or not, you'll be in a World War in no time.
Neither did the US nor the UN. I think they were all in George's imagination.
So you've decided to pick the liar that best fits your story? I would never claim that Saddam was a saint, but the reasons for attacking were bogus, most have been repudiated by some of Bush's own men, and it all looks like a truly unjustified war to me. To think otherwise would be to lay yourself open to suspicions that your judgement has been influenced by your ideology. |
|
My Favourite Campsite Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
|
|
|
| cascade | Feb 12 2006, 05:13 PM Post #73 |
|
Lloyd...Michie,Tennesse
|
"If the US starts attacking every country that can produce nerve agents, whether they have or not, you'll be in a World War in no time." By that logic, Clinton shouldn't have attacked any countries that may have, or not, contained terrorists. |
|
"[Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." --John Adams | |
|
|
|
| brewster | Feb 12 2006, 05:44 PM Post #74 |
|
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
It's the old story, actions speak louder than words... I'm simply suggesting that you get GOOD, HONEST Intelligence on motives and actual plans before you make your own plans, not look for the lie that best fits your preconceived notions. Afghanistan had known Al-Qaida operatives which the Taliban was unabashedly supporting. To the point that any war can be just, that qualified. |
|
My Favourite Campsite Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
|
|
|
| Stoney | Feb 12 2006, 07:06 PM Post #75 |
|
Huntsville, AL
|
The fact of the matter is that there was only one significant difference between the US assessment of WMDs in Iraq post 9/11 and those of the rest of the world. The difference is 9/11. The US pre 9/11 was probably more vocal and more saber rattling than the rest of the world. Maybe it's our nature to be less patient, less appeasing than others. We tend to look at appeasement and patience as weakness, maybe contributers to some of the horrors in the world. Much of the lapses in fact were available for those who wanted a more in depth analysis. At least some members of Congress were privy to unedited versions. Yet we were spurred on and overwhelmingly, initially, approved of the action. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration emphasized that which supported going into Iraq, and left off some of the caveats. But the caveats were in the news and we ignored them. Bush will rightfully take the historical blame for this, while in some respect, we are all at blame. Maybe a concern should be one that we've discussed on other threads. I often wonder if all those voices of decent now were voices of support then because of popular opinion at the time. If so, they failed the republic. I don't say that to shift blame, but to add perspective to our hindsight and what got us where we are. |
|
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau | |
|
|
|
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |
10:49 AM Jul 13