U.S. army deserter wants to stay in Canada

[AME]

TORONTO - Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board will hear Monday why Jeremy Hinzman, a former paratrooper with the U.S. army, should be granted refugee status in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ugee041204.html

[deicer]

Why not let him stay?

We bring in refugees from every other walk of life, why not allow this young man to stay?

Going back a few years they allowed a terrorist by the name Mohammed Mohammed to stay in the YYZ area(it was big news here, but not elsewhere I presume).

So if we can let someone who kills people stay, why is there such a furor over allowing someone who doesn't want to kill people stay????????

Iceman

[CAT3DUAL]

Whats the difference between Iraq and Vietnam, not much. The kid should be allowed to stay.

[Mitch Cronin]

"My life isn't that significant, but also it's not so worthless as to be killed or to go kill innocent people."

Yep, I agree, let him stay.

[Guest rattler]

Whats the difference between Iraq and Vietnam, not much.  The kid should be allowed to stay.

I think the major difference is that those who fled service during Vietnam were drafted into the US service and were jailed if they did not join up, since the US forces today are a volunteer force, I don't have any sympathy for those who sign up and then desert. The soldier in question must have known that when you volunteer to join a branch of any armed force, you may face going into combat.

[Mitch Cronin]

Agreed Rattler... there is a big difference between getting drafted and volunteering... But obviously there's also a huge difference between service in the armed forces on some foriegn soil in the middle of a conflict you don't agree with, and service at home.

Anyone who puts up his arms and say's "I don't want to kill or be killed in a war that means nothing to me" should absolutely have that freedom. Regardless of whether he should have known he'd be in that position or not. Now, if he'd deserted while defending his own soil, after signing up to do just that, I might think differently... but I don't know.... that's not the case here.

[Guest rattler]

Mitch: I could agree with you if the enlistment papers he signed had some options:(1) Only want to fight on US soil - North America

(2) Willing to fight anywhere my country sends me

(3) I only want to join if you allow me to decide when and where I want to fight.

Since they did not, then as an adult he should be held accountable for his actions.

[handyman]

Why not let him stay?

We bring in refugees from every other walk of life, why not allow this young man to stay?

Going back a few years they allowed a terrorist by the name Mohammed Mohammed to stay in the YYZ area(it was big news here, but not elsewhere I presume).

So if we can let someone who kills people stay, why is there such a furor over allowing someone who doesn't want to kill people stay????????

Iceman

There is no draft! He volunteered for the Army and now he should fulfill his promise to serve. Did he join the Army to cash in on the GI bill? Did he learn a trade? People join for different reasons and I see it as no different then telling an employer that if he type rates you then you promise to stay for a period of time.

[handyman]

Anyone who puts up his arms and say's "I don't want to kill or be killed in a war that means nothing to me" should absolutely have that freedom. Regardless of whether he should have known he'd be in that position or not. Now, if he'd deserted while defending his own soil, after signing up to do just that, I might think differently... but I don't know.... that's not the case here.

"I don't ever want to have a pay reduction"..."I don't ever want to be layed-off" oh and "I don't want to be forced to do any job I don't want to". Is that what your suggesting?

[YYC I/C]

He joined for a subsidised education, never expecting to have to go to war. But the reason the education was subsidised was because there was always the chance a war would break-out and he would have to serve. Can't always have your cake and eat it too.

[deicer]

He joined for a subsidised education, never expecting to have to go to war.  But the reason the education was subsidised was because there was always the chance a war would break-out and he would have to serve.  Can't always have your cake and eat it too.

I think that most sign up and are willing to defend their country. When did Iraq declare war on the U.S.????

I think the moral dilemma lies in the fact that soldiers today aren't used as a defence force, rather they are used as a weapon to enforce the beliefs of the powers that are in their country at the time.

In previous wars, it was to fight nazism, communism, or some other ism...

This war is for oil.

That is the crux of the matter.

If it was a war on terrorism, then they would have to attack Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Afghanistan, etc.

This current administration in the U.S. has been corrupted by a certain group, and are using the military to benefit themselves financially.

Let the boy stay.

Iceman

[handyman]

I think that most sign up and are willing to defend their country. When did Iraq declare war on the U.S.????

I think the moral dilemma lies in the fact that soldiers today aren't used as a defence force, rather they are used as a weapon to enforce the beliefs of the powers that are in their country at the time.

In previous wars, it was to fight nazism, communism, or some other ism...

This war is for oil.

That is the crux of the matter.

If it was a war on terrorism, then they would have to attack Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Afghanistan, etc.

This current administration in the U.S. has been corrupted by a certain group, and are using the military to benefit themselves financially.

Let the boy stay.

Iceman

Everything you said may be true but he signed up...period! You cannot pick and choose which order has merit and which command you will obey.

[Guest YVR]

What if it was a nice Canadian boy who volunteered for the Canadian army, got trained and fed and housed then decided he didn't want to go Haiti, Cypress, Somalia etc etc cause he might get shot at. This is what you were hired for, this is what you were trained for this is what is expected of you. You don't want to do the duty, don't take the gold!

If all you wanted to do was wear a uniform and have nice cushy job join the commissionaires and become a crossing guard or parking attendant. You will find the remuneration is not quite the same however.

[RFL]

Deicer: "this war is for oil"

I disagree, but it is partly "about" oil.

by David Frum- April 16, 2003:

Many people suspect that the Iraqi archives contain

interesting revelations about the relationship between Saddam and

French President Jacques Chirac. A UN role in Iraq would enable

Chirac to keep those documents secret. You can see why such secrecy

might appeal to the French government -- but would it "legitimate"

Iraq's?

Some of the oil contracts between Iraq and

France are hugely disfavorable to Iraq. Saddam seems to have

believed that these special deals would win him France's political

support.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts show that Bush was right

Alexander Moens

George W. Bush did not attack Iraq under false pretenses or defy the United Nations Security Council.

Before Canadians simply buy John Kerry’s partisan attacks, a closer look at the facts is needed.

In 1998, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act and made regime change in Baghdad part of the law of the land. On the day Bush nominated Colin Powell as his secretary of state, Powell commented to the press, “Saddam Hussein is sitting on a failed regime that is not going to be around in a few years.”

When Bush declared war on terrorism and its sponsors after 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy secretary of defence, argued going after Saddam at the same time. Bush held him back and concentrated on al-Qaida and the Taliban first.

But in the fall of 2001, he was faced with a new security situation and rejected the cautious pre-9/11 approach for good reasons. Osama Bin Laden had said it was his “religious duty” to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Bush chose to believe him and adopted different strategies for possible sources for such weapons.

He embraced Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf tight. He kept the crazy North Korean regime talking without rewarding it. And he decided that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida had enough American hatred in common to eventually work something out.

On Feb. 12, 2002, Powell testified before the Senate that there was “an emerging consensus” to overthrow Saddam, and that the administration was considering “a variety of options” to topple him. “We’ve finally jelled,” he said. It was not an inevitable military option. Few people remember that Bush tried smart sanctions and renewed arms inspections in Iraq in the spring of 2002. Saddam played the old “lie and defy” game with the UN and arms inspector Hans Blix.

But Britain’s Tony Blair and Powell persuaded Bush to seek regime change via the UN and to make it a case against weapons of mass destruction. On Sept. 12, Bush demanded a new UN resolution, one final opportunity. France negotiated hard to avoid hidden triggers. UN resolution 1441 was a compromise: Iraq would have to make both a false declaration and defy full compliance before the war option could be brought to the Security Council. Then on Jan. 20, as France knew Blix was coming to the end of the 105 days stipulated in 1441, and as Saddam had defied both triggers, France pulled a diplomatic coup on Bush. Paris said, “Nothing justifies envisaging military action.” People kept saying “inspections are working.”

UN resolution 1441, however, was about complete and immediate compliance, which Iraq violated on numerous occasions. Blix reported in early March that there were 29 clusters of violations. 1441 always allowed the U.S to act alone in self-defence, France forced it to do so.

It turns out that western intelligence was lazy, and, given Saddam’s rock-bottom reputation, never challenged. But there was no daylight among Democrats and Republicans on the firm belief that Saddam had chemical and biological stockpiles capabilities. Kerry saw the CIA’s national intelligence estimate in the first week of October 2002 and he voted for Congress’s war resolution.

What did Bush do wrong? He took the facts and squeezed the strongest argument possible out of them. But did not make a case out of hot air. If you have the whole world going against you, it is tempting to make strongest case you can.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his generals devised a light and precise war that not only spared Iraqi civilians but also many Iraqi soldiers. Comparing the low casualties in the war against the hundreds of thousands killed under Saddam, Bush’s action was just. Rogue states with WMD got the point and Europeans, including Germany and France, are working with Bush on removing these threats as never before.

The world is finally starting to turn the corner on taking proliferation seriously instead of just signing nice treaties. Ronald Reagan had the fortitude to push the Evil Empire, Bush has the courage to push brutal dictatorships with weapon schemes. It is not war-mongering and empire-building. It’s “freedom through strength.” And like its predecessor, “peace through strength,” it works.

Alexander Moens is a professor of political science at Simon Fraser University.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it really was "for" oil then wouldn't the world's largest proven oil reserve at Ft. McMurray be the safe and easy choice?

[Mitch Cronin]

"I don't ever want to have a pay reduction"..."I don't ever want to be layed-off" oh and "I don't want to be forced to do any job I don't want to". Is that what your suggesting?

Are you suggesting those things are anything like saying "I don't want to kill or be killed"?

What would you suggest? Put him in front of a firing squad for desertion?

What kind of a world is this where we don't want to let a man make that very critical decision? Who the hell has any moral right to tell him he has to?

Last question... what would you want to happen to him if he was your son?

[deicer]

Alexander Moens is a professor of political science at Simon Fraser University.

Alexander Moens is also a "Senior Fellow" at the Fraser Institute.

I've spent the last while reading up on the Fraser Institute, which is a "think tank" which has a definite Neo-Conservative" lean to it.

Here is there mission statement...

"Our Approach

Founded in 1974 at a time when many Canadians believed that government should be the principal source of growth and development in the economy, the Institute has helped bring about a considerable shift in public opinion in recognition of the importance of market competition"

Of course Mr. Moens would be in favor of what the U.S. is trying to accomplish. I have perused several of his articles on the net, and he definitely approves of the Neo-Conservative way of conducting business, imho.

Not to totally invalidate his writings, but I do believe that it is important to find out which slant a writer has when he is publishing articles. Just the same as when you watch newscasts, you must understand whose agenda they are trying to put forth.

Totally impartial news sources are few and far between these days.

To address YVR's statement, "What if it was a nice Canadian boy who volunteered for the Canadian army, got trained and fed and housed then decided he didn't want to go Haiti, Cypress, Somalia etc etc cause he might get shot at." This case is totally different. When a Canadian boy signs up, it is with the understanding that Canada has a storied history as a peacekeeper, and that he may be sent to help these conflicts come to an end. He does not sign up to be a weapon of aggression.

I think that most soldiers would put their lives on the line to DEFEND their countries and the policies that they have.

The problem with US policy in the Iraq conflict is that it has been one big lie right from the beginning. If Saddam was such a problem, then why wasn't he taken care of in '91?

Because he still had some residual value to the Bush regime at the time.

Saddam stepped out of his mandate, and became a liability, therefore he had to be eliminated for the good of Big Oil.

Is this a valid reason to send our youth to their deaths?

I agree with fighting for peace and security around the world.....

That is not the case in Iraq.

Iceman

[Guest neo]

This young man is in a very difficult situation, and I sympathize with that, and with his views on the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, deserting his voluntary choice to serve in the military is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go.

I fully understand that since he joined the military, and perhaps matured and changed his views of things, that he could no longer act in a combat role. Under those circumstances, I believe the most moral choice would be to declare your willingness to serve your military time in a non-combat or combat-humanitarian role, perhaps as a field medic or the like. Failing that, your most moral choice would be to refuse the order to enter combat, and accept the punishment that the military deemed appropriate. To walk away from your voluntary commitment to serve while evading the consequences of that is not fully honorable.

Had he been conscripted into the military, my views would be different.

neo

[handyman]

Are you suggesting those things are anything like saying "I don't want to kill or be killed"? 

What would you suggest? Put him in front of a firing squad for desertion?

What kind of a world is this where we don't want to let a man make that very critical decision? Who the hell has any moral right to tell him he has to?

Last question... what would you want to happen to him if he was your son?

Yes, it's his job! What if he was a firefighter and was scared to go into a burning building? ...or a policeman etc. etc. Where do you cross the line?

When your a soldier you follow orders. You can't understand that because you have never been a soldier. You may not have what it takes to be a soldier and all the more reason why you fail to understand what's wrong here.

If it was my son, I would have had these conversations with him before he signed up and if he decided to sign up anyways, then I would tell him he has to go. I would be worried and I would pray for him but I would also expect him to go. Any parent not willing to do the same holds no regard for right or wrong nor do they understand what duty to your nation means.

We all speak favorably of democracy and freedoms we enjoy today. What if thousands decided they didn't want to kill or be killed in WWII?

[handyman]

To address YVR's statement, "What if it was a nice Canadian boy who volunteered for the Canadian army, got trained and fed and housed then decided he didn't want to go Haiti, Cypress, Somalia etc etc cause he might get shot at." This case is totally different. When a Canadian boy signs up, it is with the understanding that Canada has a storied history as a peacekeeper, and that he may be sent to help these conflicts come to an end. He does not sign up to be a weapon of aggression.

I think that most soldiers would put their lives on the line to DEFEND their countries and the policies that they have.

The problem with US policy in the Iraq conflict is that it has been one big lie right from the beginning. If Saddam was such a problem, then why wasn't he taken care of in '91?

Because he still had some residual value to the Bush regime at the time.

Saddam stepped out of his mandate, and became a liability, therefore he had to be eliminated for the good of Big Oil.

Is this a valid reason to send our youth to their deaths?

I agree with fighting for peace and security around the world.....

That is not the case in Iraq.

Iceman

You were never in the Military and will never understand that he is not a Civil Servant but a Soldier.

[handyman]

This young man is in a very difficult situation, and I sympathize with that, and with his views on the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, deserting his voluntary choice to serve in the military is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go.

I fully understand that since he joined the military, and perhaps matured and changed his views of things, that he could no longer act in a combat role. Under those circumstances, I believe the most moral choice would be to declare your willingness to serve your military time in a non-combat or combat-humanitarian role, perhaps as a field medic or the like. Failing that, your most moral choice would be to refuse the order to enter combat, and accept the punishment that the military deemed appropriate. To walk away from your voluntary commitment to serve while evading the consequences of that is not fully honorable.

Had he been conscripted into the military, my views would be different.

neo

Oh sure, "all those willing to fight line-up on the right and those that would rather march up and down the parade square on the left".

[deicer]

No Sir, I was not in the military.

I do understand that he is a Soldier.

I also understand he is a human being.

Iceman

[handyman]

No Sir, I was not in the military.

I do understand that he is a Soldier.

I also understand he is a human being.

Iceman

and I understand that he will default on his promiss to his nation. So, he either do his duty or spend the rest of his required duty in the stockade.

[deicer]

There is a long history of persons incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.

As I stated earlier, and I agreed with you, it is a "Promise to Defend his Nation". Where did it state that he would be an agressor for the oil interest?

Iceman

[handyman]

There is a long history of persons incarcerated for crimes they did not commit.

As I stated earlier, and I agreed with you, it is a "Promise to Defend his Nation". Where did it state that he would be an agressor for the oil interest?

Iceman

Oh but he takes the oath of promise to follow orders and since the order has not been deemed illegal, he must obey it or be punished.

[deicer]

OK

So we agree to disagree.

To take this back even further, for arguements sake, hasn't it been through the wringer that Dubya wasn't "legally" elected the first time, therefore shouldn't have been re-elected, and therefore isn't in the position to give "legal" orders????

Man, now I'm tooooo deep.

Iceman