Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by DoyleG, Dec 4, 2004.
Honey, you signed up for the army. What did you think you were going to be up for, handing out lollipops and candy canes to the children of the world?
From his website, concerning his application to be listed as a conscientious objector that was considered when he was serving in Afghanistan:
Either have your cake or eat it, son.
The BBC have reported:
Mr Hinzman, who took his wife and son with him to Toronto, says he believes the US-led war in Iraq is illegal.
Mr Hinzman's lawyer is presenting what he says is evidence of US war crimes in Iraq at the hearing.
And a lobby group campaigning on Mr Hinzman's behalf argues that he was merely obeying international law by refusing to fight in Iraq because the United Nations never authorised the use of force there.
What the Bush administration is going to hate is that the non-US press is going to get hold of what could be some damning information on how the US military is operating in the Middle East and whether the US ever had the right to launch the invasions.
I'd love to see his "evidence". And since when do we need permission from the UN to do anything?
Oh and before you jump on me for being a supporter of the war save your breath, I'm not.
If he doesn't have any then the Canadians are just going to send him home.
Since the US, Russia, China, Germany, France, etc made up the rules - no invasions without UN Security Council approval. US didn't have UN Security Council approval so shouldn't have invaded.
Since when does UN policy dictate US policy? The UN has no, nor should it have any, influence over US policy.
My sympathy for this guy's plight is extremely limited. Some might say that it's non-existent.
If you don't want to fight in wars that you don't believe in, don't sign up with the Army before the war starts.
That is something he has to explain to the board.
BTW, for that illegal war argument.
Here is how it works. If one country wants to invade another they must have the permission of the UN Security Council. Any permanent member of the UN Security Council (USA, Russia, France, China, etc) has the right to veto any proposal before the Security Council and the answer is no. The United States uses its veto powers to protect its allies, Israel in particular, and France used its veto power to stop the United States and allies invading Iraq. The United States and allies ignored the veto and invaded anyway in breach of agreements implemented into US law when it became a permanent member of the UN Security Council. This is why the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
If the US doesn't want to have the UN to have the power to affect its policies then it should leave the UN otherwise play by the rules.
So, you would rather have an unelected and out of touch body dictate what a soverign nation should do?
the u.n. should keep its collective mouth shut until industrialized, democratic nations are planning on going to war with eachother.
Yeah, damn that Bush administration.
What he said. Doesn't matter. When you're in the military, war is your job. Whether or not the war is justified.
Acutally, that's what pisses me off most about this war. We're pimping out our kids so that a couple of 10Qs will look better. But, right or wrong, that's what you sign up for. And anyone who's signed up since Vietnam should know that they might have to fight in a war that... well, let's just say they should know that "defending my country" won't involve finding submarines off of Battery Point
So sending soldiers to Kosovo wasn't approved by the UN either. Is Bill Clinton a war criminal?
Of course the veto power assumes all countries are voting without their own personal interest involved. When has THAT happened?
The US can't leave the UN, it will die without us.
Then I guess we have no one to blame but ourselves for their incompetence, seeing as how they exist because of us, and only because of us.
The UN Security Council reflects the world powers as they were at the end of the second world war and this is one of the problems with the council. A number of countries have expressed serious concern about the council as it reflects the view of how the Security Council members want the world to be not, necessarily, how other UN member nations want it to be.
It is my personal view that as the non-Security Council members get stronger then their patience with the Security Council will drop and they will, as the US and its allies have done in Iraq, ignore its rulings. This will make the Security Council redundant.
The push within the EU, particularly from France, to ensure that the EU Rapid Reaction Force did not come under the command of NATO, and hence the US, was one of the first signs of countries moving away from their traditional alliances.
U.S. army deserter feared committing atrocities
You might want to brush up on your history a bit Start with 1966.
I'm actually a little sympathetic to the "I don't want to commit atrocities" argument, myself. Yeah, he shouldn't have joined, but someone who believed in the Afghanistan War, and joined the military in October 2001 or so, didn't necessarily see the Iraq disaster on the horizon.
But he is a deserter, so he should be given the same punishment that his Commander in Chief got when he deserted.
To most Serbs, he is....
so is madaline albright and the clinton gang
William Cohen.....ooooo don't start with me there!
The Un Failed miserably....
It was here to protect and serve, it was here to be a non-partizan party to conflicts and it didn't do that. People take sides alll the time and no one can agree on anything....
The UN probably stopped a WW3, but in the end, alloweed dictators to rule, regimes to prospour and genocides to occur!! They have failed!
Sounds like the UN used Kosovo as a warmup for the OUTSTANDING they did in Iraq in preventing dictators from make bank and exercize genocide on their own people. Yeah UN!