Traitors Aren't Welcome in Canada

Im not sure whether to take offense to alby's posts or just laugh at it being ironic. Either way, I don't know what the fuss is about?

When people tell me that Iraq is a problem, or a quagmire... well, they're right. That's why nobody wanted to take Saddam down in '91. All the talk of power vacuums and such. The cost is very real, and very high. Of course, thousands of people have running water now...

Could it have been handled better? Maybe. But don't just say that because you hate Bush. Tell me HOW it could have been handled better, using ONLY the information available at the time.

Anyway, to the point. When folks say that the war was illegal, I have to wonder by whose standards? Certainly we're not counting the United Nations? I mean, they passed a UNANIMUS resolution against Iraq to the tune of "cooperate or else." That seemed rather decisive to me. Then Saddam igored it... just like he always did. When America proposed writing another resolution with more tooth to it, certain countries threatened to veto it before it was even submitted. (Incidentally, these were the same countries implicated in the Oil for Food scandal.)

Why doesn't anyone seem to remember Resolution 1441? The United Nations consistently displays corruption and impotence, and yet they are still able to command a sort of default respect. The UN is a great idea, of course... but it needs to actually accomplish something once in a while. Remember that our tax dollars fund 22% of the UN's budget, and we seem to be the only country that they try to hold accountable for anything. Oh, and Israel. The UN is usually very upset with the Israelis for their continuing insistance that they shouldn't be mass murdered on a daily basis.

The world is a big place. There are a lot of angles, and plenty of room on all sides for good and bad guys.

hey wait.. Colorado is a Blue State now!

Here's the county map based on percentage of voters and showing population levels.


Mmmm... tons of pure red in there, you're right. The republicans have vaaaaaaast support.

[edit] not really relevant for what's being discussed at the moment, I just like pretty pictures.

How in the hell was he abusive?

Here's a good site that illustrates the election by area and population... it goes to show just how close the election was, but how segregated the voters were... it truly was rural vs. urban.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

IMHO...I think you should just laugh about it. Alby is just an ignorant human being who has been brain washed by the US media and bullshit retoric that the neo cons preach. I have been away from the foruma for awhile now, because my feeling is why waste my time in the forums with sharing my political views....when I can be out in the RW doing something about it. I have been going out and protesting this so called "government" in every aspect...not just about the war but also human rights...etc. Just feel pity for an ignorant soul as Alby.

Oh yeah..Darko and I will be moving our family to Canada in the near future. CANADA ROCKS!!!

Which is very true and the point of questioning the legality of the Iraq war is that despite what we may think the UN is -- there are international laws that it watches over. Wether Bush and his administration were right or wrong to go into Iraq; they went in against the law.

Now yes -- it might've taken a long time to go through the due process. But without it, where would the world be? Without law, where would we be?

Bush clearly sent a message -- that he is beyond any law.

He is not and no one should ever be... but there are those who believe they are and he is one of them. He's also in a position to help those that believe they are above the law out.

So what? Anyone can break the law to get their way? I mean... due process takes to long doesn't it?

So should it have been illegal, Bush's armies go to war and commit many documented illegal things while there, and by extension makes the UN meaningless.

First, "Traitor" is a pretty strong word to use, you are just stiring up shit there IMO.

Second, anyone who wants to desert the US army is totally welcome at my house and most "regular" Canadians would think similar I think. What the government decides is a different story altogether, I am sure George has given his orders to our PM on that point.

Lastly, the fact that the 60's and the spirit of them is "over" is a very sad and bad thing. the world would be a lot better off today if those ideas were not quashed the way they were. (again my opinion)

If you sign up to be a Military Solder then you are signing up for war. He is a 26 your old man who know what he was doing when he ran. He voluntaried to serve the USA in combat by signing that peace of paper. Sorry my sorry I had that option to sign when I was in HS. I said no way! I looked at one of the guys in school who tried to get my to sign up with him. I said, “Are you nuts I am not going to go to war” he said not chance of that. Well he died in Desert Storm. No if you have 1/2 a brain you know that there has been a chance, I did.

What happened in the 60’s was not the same as this. In the 60’s it was a time of draft and you were told if you were going to go fight and die. Now in the 2000’s we have a all voluntary military. This man signed a peace of paper saying he would fight for the US if told to. I being male signed by force to sign a peace of paper saying I will fight for the US if ASKED. He was not asked. He was not forced. He signed and joined on his own. In the 60’s people were asked and told if you don’t you go to jail. Well that is wrong too.

Dianne is of course right, someone who deserts their duty is NOT a traitor, but a deserter. To be a traitor, on must participate in war against the United States or provide in some way for those that are.

It seems to me that many undereducated patriotic War Supporter who do not understand what a traitor is , nor the true weight of the term, throw it around as an intended slight.

To be perfectly clear , Treason, is an exteremly serious crime. It is spelled out directly in the Constitution. Calling someone a Traitor is on a level with calling someone a murderer.

As far as deserters go, if the wieght of the term derter has lost its edge, then decry that. Do not use the word Traitor. It shows ignorance and it is provocative.

Remember My Lai? Calley was a traitor to humanity, and the men who followed his orders were just as treasonous.

Soldiers don't just have the right to disobey unjust, illegal and unethical orders, they have a duty to do so... as do we all.

Sidenote: while the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists", they were gung-ho God-fearing Conservative Capitalists all the way down the line.

In the Iraq Conflict (not war) what is illegal? I get the were you feel it is unjust and unethical, but how is it illegal?

The war would have been legal if there had been a resolution unambiguously authorizing the use of force from the Security Council, or substantial HARD evidence of either an impending attack or an impending humanitarian crisis.

There was no UN resolution authorizing the invasion. There was no hard evidence of an impending attack. And while the entire term of Hussein's reign was a humanitarian crisis, there was nothing specific about the time period in question that would give legal footing to a mass invasion.

It has been argued that the "legality" of the war is irrelevant, since the body enforcing that law doesn't have the strength to stop the U.S. from doing anything it wants. That strikes me as a singularly backwards type of "might makes right" argument, and if we continue to employ it, we may find that the combined forces of the rest of the world can stop the U.S. fairly easily. I would rather not find out.

The fact is the UN and the Security Council are not a governmental body. They are a body to HELP guide what other countries does not force or legislate what they do. So again how is it illegal?


What UN bylaws did the US and it’s Allies in the Iraq Conflict brake? Even if did that would not make it Legal or illegal the UN is not a Legislation body.


No the UN has no legal power. The UN is not a government. It is a group of countries getting together to help bring governments together it is not un to it’s self a government. Also stop saying US it is US and Allies. UK, Spain (till they pulled out) Italy, Japan……………………… all are there or spending money on this. So really

Again What law was broken. Give me one. Just one.

If you don't believe in the validity of international law and the bodies that enforce it, there's no basis for rational discussion.

When they deploy peacekeepers to the Beltway, I just hope they don't mess up the commute.

Did I say I didn’t? I would be fore a ELECTED governmental body. Problem is UN is not elected by the people. Also at this time UN does not have the power you are trying to say they have. If they did then yes the US and it’s allies broke the law, but seeing they don’t then it’s not a problem.


So US troops are being sent to man US soil? WOW!



I think I should make it clear my feeling on the way in Iraq.

Iraq 1 (Desert Storm):
What right to we have to tell a country they could not invade in to a country. We were allies with both countries. The US had done the same thing in Mexico (taking Texas and other South West States). He who is with out stone cast the first stone.

Iraq 2:
Iraq signed a Cease Fire with the Allies (not the UN). Then UN was asked to Manage the conditions of it. The UN did a poor job. Iraq had not lived up to the cease fire so the US wanted to go in and make them. 100% of the UN felt that Iraq had WMD. The UN then said no they would not back going in to Iraq. So they said yes Iraq was out side what they were to do but we don’t have the balls to make them. US said lets go in. I have to say I agree we are only as strong as we act. If you can push us around then we have nothing.

Afghanistan: (just throw this in for fun)
Taliban and the Afghanistan people did not do a thing against the US. The government of the Taliban asked for proof of bin Ladan’s involvement in 9/11 and if there was they would hand him over. We gave that proof to every other country that asked for it. Why did we refuse to give it to the Taliban? Kind of ass holeish.

The UN authorized Desert Storm under Resolution 678. The terms of the cease fire were set forth in Resolution 687.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter addresses the use of force by one nation against another. Anybody interested in a more complete analysis should check out this article.

Hussein's refusal to permit access to weapon inspectors may have been sufficient legal cause to initiate the invasion, but that was for the full Security Council to decide, not the Bush administration. By acting outside the framework of the UN, they basically handed a blank check to any rogue state that wants to do the same thing.

My personal belief is that the invasion was rushed into production because the administration knew full well that if Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors in, they would find nothing and Bush would look like a bumbling fool. But I can't prove that assertion.

Bush would look fool? John Kerry and the Intelligent Comity said that data that Bush used was legit. It was Chaney that said it was not. So really it would make Chaney look good and Bush foolish for following the Intelligent Comity and the UN over his VP. The UN and the Intelligent Comity would look foolish unless you want to just forget again them and there hand in saying he had WMD. Remember the UN voted 100% saying he had WMD not on US intel but on there own intel.

Problem is we didn’t sign a blank check for any roug nation. Really we told them it does not mater that the UN will let your actions go we will not. UN voted 100% that they were in violations, UN did nothing. Come on if a group of people kept telling you were out of order then refused to do any thing would you really still follow them?

Just because in Resolution 678 authorized the use of force does not mean it was a UN force. Lets get realy most of the troops there that time are the same ones there this time. US and UK. It was US generals that ran Desert Storm. Why? Becase the UN does not have it’s own force and has no laws but guidelines.

I am really starting to hate you for making be defend Bush. I really dislike the man for real reasons, this is not one.

Iraq was in material violation of 687 by refusing inspectors access. Would the UN have eventually sanctioned the use of force on that basis? Or would Hussein have backed down? We'll never know. The US abandoned the legal process because we didn't want Hussein to comply: we wanted him gone.

Ya we do know. How many times did he back down and let them in to turn around to kick them out? Go back look at his track recorded. It was not once or twice. It was allot more then that. How many chances should he have been given?

The various political interests of the world would look at this thread and smile.

As long as we fight one another over labels and definitions and party lines, we will not have any time to keep them in check.

They love that.

Who is fighting on party lines? I am no for the R&D. I think both sides need to wake up. I call them how I see if. If it's right or left I don't care. It's should be write and wrong?

Lupo no offense, but you should give this up.

You are really totally off base here.
You don't have any idea of the legalities in question.

Try googling "international law."

Or better yet *listen* to Arcadia, she *is* taking the time to explain it to you after all.

.