If you became a soldier...

Would you conscientiously object to fight a war?

  • I hope I would.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I hope I wouldn't.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't want to answer.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I'd like to know your thoughts on conscientious objection?

First off, would you ever voluntarily join a military force?

Secondly, if you did become a soldier, either voluntarily or by conscription, how would you react? Please be honest here. This is not a moral or ethical question, nor do I want people to start to judge each other here. I just want straight answers. You don't even need to explain or defend your answers in this thread if you don't want to, and please do not apply pressure on others to defend theirs. I just want straightforward honesty without any judgementalism.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Here are my answer.

Although I had voluntarily joined the military before, admittedly due to a recession, I hope I'd never do so again.

As for being conscripted, well, phylosophically I'm very much a legalist, to the point that I'd even want to obey a law I disagreed with, unless it was infringing on my right to believe what I want to believe (i.e., I'd still reserve the right to not agree with the law and express it openly). So if I were conscripted, I hope I would serve, but would still request a non-combast role if possible. If that were not possible, then I'd proabaly serve in a combat role.

And you?
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
"Maybe"

I'm not against violence.
I don't easily resort to violence, but I'm not anti-war.

If the U.S. invaded Canada ..... It would be lights-out at the O.K. Corral for any American I saw.

The U.N. has recognized the occupation of Iraq. That is about as legal as your gonna get in this world. They may say it is "illegal" but in true fact, the U.N. has dealt with the soverignty issue some time ago.

The poor in the U.S. cannot afford college. (The rich always planned it that way.) The poor then end up having to beg the government for assistance and need to sign their lives away just to get an education.

These guys signed a legal contract and in which they agreed to obey the Commander and Chief at any cost and at any time. Period.
I never heard too much screaming from soldiers when they invaded Granada or Panama or Latin America.
The difference is that they see what the odds are of winning this war. It has little to do with conscience. If the U.S. had a conscience, they would not have so much inequity in their society.
These same people sat by during the 12 years of sanctions against Iraq and said nothing. 250 thousand kids died and they said nothing.

American society is just about "Me".

If a "Me" wants to object to this war because of conscience, I can't argue with that. But, I don't want them trying to change our system or our refugee rules to suit their needs. Let them change their own rules in their own country and work 24-7 to try and accomplish that.

Calm
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 9 years, and if called upon to fight in defense of my country, or for a peacekeeping mission, I would have seen it as my duty to go and do my best.

Having said that, if I were called upon to fight in an Iraq-type illegal war, I would have sought every means at my disposal to avoid becoming involved in a conflict that is illegal in the eyes of the international community, and is fostering a generation of war criminals. To do otherwise is to be complicit in crimes against humanity.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Calm, you have got a point. While the UN never approved the war per se, it has sinse acknowledged the US government's right to rule Iraq, at least for the time being. So while the US occupation may be legal according to international law, the war wasn't. So I'm not too sure where to stand on that one now. I guess sinse the UN never allowed the war, it's not ours to deal with, but now that the UN has acknowledged the US' right to occupy it for now, then that makes it the US' responsibility until the UN says otherwise, and we have no business sticking our noses in it until the UN says otherwise. So from that perspective, if the occupation of Iraq is now legal in fact, then Canada would be hard pressed to keep the refugee soldiers arguing that they are avoiding an illegal war. By the way, would the international community recognize it as a war or would they view the insurgents as simply criminals breaking Iraqi law. Again, my apologies, I really am ignorant of some of the subtleties of international law.
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
We almost need to be like Clinton .... "It all depends on what is is" ... as he tried to claim he was not really lying.

The U.S. had a resolution passed which stated that if Saddam did not comply with weapon inspections .... that "severe consequences would follow".

To this day, Bush would say that this resolution gave him the authority to invade.
The U.N. would claim that they expected the U.S. to return to the Assembly for "approval" and only agreed to the first resolution with this in mind.

There is lots of wiggle room!

Once the U.N. authorized the occupation, then it meant the war was over. It is now an occupation under International law. In order to get this resolution passed, the U.S. agreed to hold elections by January 31st.
If the elections are not held, it is a breach of the U.N. resolution. The U.S. would need to return to the U.N. and get another authorization.

This cannot happen. The insurgents know International law and they are trying to get the U.S. forced back to the U.N.

They will have the elections .... oh .... there will be lots of wiggle room there too.
The U.S. will claim the elections to be fair and the U.N. would be hard pressed to insist on a new resolution requirement.

The soldiers seeking asylum are only breaking US law and not International law.

Calm
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
In order for Jeremy Hinzman to be recognized as a refugee in this country, he need only show evidence that his life would be in jeopardy should he return to the US.

The United States reserves the right to execute deserters in time of war. Whether they will or not is irrelevant. The possibility exists that Hinzman would be executed for desertion in time of war and therefore the Canadian government is obligated to grant him refugee status.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
But then what if the US should sign an agreement with Canada that any soldier sent back from Canada will not be executed and would fully comply with Canadian expectations. Then it would seem to me that Canada would be left with no other option according to international law other than to send the soldier back, unless of course international law itself were changed so as to allow Canada to keep these refugees. And to change international law, Canada would of course need to argue its point on grounds of justice. But again, conscientious objection is genreally viewed by most laws as being a clear violation of the law, full stop.
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
I can't quite remember the criminal case exactly, but we had some notorious serial killer here in Canada fighting extradition to the US.

The U.S. agreed not to seek the death penalty in that case.
The guy was shipped!

Lets not forget ... Our own government turned over Anrar and he was a Canadian!

The U.S. will desperately want justice "appear" to be justice.
So, they can't start telling the American people that they will start hanging guys. Let's get real!

The U.S. will automatically agree to no death penalty.
Problem solved!

I figure 15 years in solitary confinement is like being dead .... but like Christ in the morning, "dead prisoners" arise someday.

The U.S. only wants to shame the first few guys! Watch how the press handles it. It will be bad camera angles, ugly pictures, and a stern look on the news presenters face.

Calm
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: RE: If you became a soldier...

Machjo said:
But again, conscientious objection is genreally viewed by most laws as being a clear violation of the law, full stop.

Contienteous objection is not a clear violation of any law. Contienteous objectors were recognized in both world wars by both the axis countries and the allies.

My grandfather was a German CO in WWI. For religious reasons he stated that he could not take another life, and so they placed him in the forestry department.

Armies don't like contienteous objectors, they're bad for morale, but they should recognize that if a person refuses to fight, it would be better not to have them on the front lines...
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
And don't forget the recent case of an American soldier who just walked out of North Korea and into Japan. He deserted during the Korean war.

But, because of age (any excuse) he basically got "time served".

Justice must only "appear" to be done.

Calm
 

ElPolaco

Electoral Member
Nov 5, 2004
271
0
16
Fruita, CO, Aztlan
www.spec-tra.com
I was in the u.s army for two years, 68-70. I enlisted for 4 years and after thinking, reading and talking with others, changed my mind about the vietnam war. I avoided being sent to vietnam for 11 months, but was finally sent in 8/69. Fortunately, I served with a signal detachment and didn't have to directly kill anyone. After being discharged early for a "severe schizoid caracter manifested by chronic drug abuse" (their diagnosis, not mine--though herion, opium and marijuana were abundant and I willingly consumed as much as possible). After discharge, I was involved in left wing politics and didn't believe in imperialist wars, but supported "people's struggles". Now however, I'm a religious pacifist and even if I believed in a particular war's cause (in u.s. history would have been the union cause in the civil war and world war II) I would only participate in a non-combat capacit (i.e. medical) because I can't kill for any reason.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
I view the problem as an employee/boss situation, and as an employee of the Armed Forces,I know that there are times I would be called on to do what I was hired for. In other words,I would obey any orders given me while I was in the Services.Whoever was designated as the enemy,I would do my best to kill.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: If you became a soldi

It would depend on the war, wouldn't it? If Canada was being threatened or invaded? Sure, no problem. If Canada was at war with itself? The side I chose might not say "Canada", but I'd be there. To go to Iraq? Not a chance.

The UN's recognition of the occupation is dependent on the US following international laws of occupation. They have clearly broken those. The UN may not have declared it, but the occupation has become illegal. That happened the second Paul Bremer began privatising Iraqi industry and is reinforced every time an American commits a war crime with seeming impunity.

Conscientious objectors are allowed under the laws of most western countries, Machjo. Polaco may be able to give the whole story here, but it seems to me that the US had quite a few conscientious objectors serving in Vietnam. I believe that includes medics who were in the battle field.

The designation isn't required under international law, but it isn't illegal either. It becomes pertinent in cases like Hinzman's because he needs to show that he did try to work within the rules of his country to avoid combat.
 

Sinthetik

New Member
Dec 27, 2004
8
0
1
Newfoundland, Canada
Currently my boyfriend is over in Afghan. on a Peacekeeping mission. Being in the Reg. Forces he doesnt really have a choice. They tell him where and when to go. When He finishes up in Feb they will have to wait one full year before they can send him out again.

You should be well aware of what you are joining before you get into it. Knowing all the facts help.

Knowing what I know now, really makes it hard for me to decided on an anwser for that question.
 

chrisfer

New Member
Nov 29, 2004
19
0
1
Oshawa
If I volunteer then I am responsible for my decision and I fulfill my obligations whether I believe in them or not. If conscripted I would have to believe In Canada this could only mean the direst of circumstances and most probably the defense of Canada and then its defend Canada to the death. I don't believe there is a such thing as a conscientious objector, it sounds like a students excuse to get out of a test, or a copout.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
Re: RE: If you became a soldier...

chrisfer said:
If I volunteer then I am responsible for my decision and I fulfill my obligations whether I believe in them or not. If conscripted I would have to believe In Canada this could only mean the direst of circumstances and most probably the defense of Canada and then its defend Canada to the death. I don't believe there is a such thing as a conscientious objector, it sounds like a students excuse to get out of a test, or a copout.

that is how Canada and america differ. We have diferent definations of "Dire". I too would defend Canada to the death but I would not invade another country for the hell of it like america is in iraq.

The american invasion of Afghanistan was just (even though Afghanistan is not much better off) as they attacked America HOWEVER Iraq did no such thing.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: RE: If you became a soldier...

no1important said:
The american invasion of Afghanistan was just (even though Afghanistan is not much better off) as they attacked America HOWEVER Iraq did no such thing.

Well the country of Afghanistan didn't attack the US either...but it was thought by the intelligence community that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorists...mind you that was the same gaggle of intelligencia that dug up the WMD and terrorist dirt on Iraq...so now I've got to wonder...