Troops who has had enough of war and the lies that goes with it.


http://www.unknownnews.org/0507190715MoisesHernandez.html

Marine allegedly asked to be shot to avoid return to Iraq

by Annie Sweeney, Chicago Sun-Times

July 15, 2005

A day before he was to return to active duty, a U.S. Marine stood on a Chicago street and begged his cousin for help.

Moises Hernandez had just come home from Iraq last month and was having nightmares and didn't want to go back to the war, he told his cousin, according to prosecutors. "Shoot me," Hernandez allegedly told his cousin.

The cousin was hesitant at first, then relented and allegedly shot Hernandez in the leg early Saturday morning.

Hernandez told police he was hit by random gang gunfire in his Belmont Cragin neighborhood. People in the community quickly organized an anti-violence rally Saturday night.

But after police sorted through the story over the weekend, Hernandez was charged with a felony for filing a false police report about the shooting in the 4200 block of West Schubert. His cousin Juan Hernandez, also 19, has been charged with felony weapons charges and is scheduled to appear in court today.

On Monday, Hernandez returned to his unit at Camp Pendleton in California, where the incident remained under investigation, a spokesman from the Marines said.

Moises' father, Ray Hernandez, said his son was obviously troubled when he returned home at the end of June. He had nightmares, would roam the house flipping the lights on and off, and sometimes would shake at night.

His son had been sent to Indonesia after the tsunami hit last December and talked about the dead bodies he saw floating in the ocean. In Iraq, he also saw death up close, his father said.

"It hurt me to hear him say what he had to do,'' said Hernandez, 43. "Whatever he experienced changed him totally."


"I am sure my son is not the only one affected,'' he said. "I am sure a lot of them don't come back with a straight mind. ... The only thing my son is guilty of is making a bad decision. I still love my son. He made a bad decision.''


Moises Hernandez joined the Marines in 2003 to escape gang violence, said his father, who has spent more than 10 years fighting against gangs in the Northwest Side community. That year, Moises and his father were both jumped by gang members, and together they decided the military might be an option out of the neighborhood for Moises.

War, as a political tool, MUST be eliminated from society's options to move ideological agendas.

Women KNOW this. Men don't GET IT. Yet.

Back to you, guys...... :football: Your play.

Right there with you MommaD.

Is this what you're talking about?

*******************

Woman's touch needed

As the pundits suggest, our culture is predominantly masculine. We train our children to think and solve problems in masculine ways. Like the mothers in Barbara Kingsolver's column, if a women were in charge, she might handle problems very differently.

Yes, perhaps a less macho mentality might serve the world better. An excerpt from the LA Times, 3/15/05:

COMMENTARY
The Feminine Technique

Men attack problems. Maybe women understand that there's a better way.

By Deborah Tannen

Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, is the author of "The Argument Culture" (Random House, 1998).

There is plenty of evidence that men more than women, boys more than girls, use opposition, or fighting, as a format for accomplishing goals that are not literally about combat � a practice that cultural linguist Walter Ong called "agonism," from the Greek word for war, agon.

Watch kids of any age at play. Little boys set up wars and play-fights. Little girls fight, but not for fun. Starting a fight is a common way for boys to make friends: One boy shoves another, who shoves back, and pretty soon they're engaged in play. But when a boy tries to get into play with a girl by shoving her, she's more likely to try to get away from him. A recent New Yorker cartoon captured this: It showed a little girl and a little boy eyeing each other. She's thinking, "I wonder if I should talk to him." He's thinking, "I wonder if I should kick her."

Older boys have their own version of agonism, using fighting as a format for doing things that have nothing to do with actual combat: They show affection by mock-punching, getting a friend's head in an armlock or playfully trading insults.

Here's an example that one of my students observed: Two boys and a girl are building structures with blocks. When they're done, the boys start throwing blocks at each other's structures to destroy them.

The girl protects hers with her body. The boys say they don't really want their own creations destroyed, but the risk is worth it because it's fun to destroy the other's structures. The girl sees nothing entertaining about destroying others' work.

Arguing ideas as a way to explore them is an adult version of these agonistic rituals. Because they're used to this agonistic way of exploring ideas � playing devil's advocate � many men find that their adrenaline gets going when someone challenges them, and it sharpens their minds: They think more clearly and get better ideas. But those who are not used to this mode of exploring ideas, including many women, react differently: They back off, feeling attacked, and they don't do their best thinking under those circumstances.

This is one reason many women who are talented and passionate lovers of science drop out of the profession. It's not that they're not fascinated by the science, don't have the talent to come up with new ideas or are not willing to put long hours into the lab, but that they're put off by the competitive, cutthroat culture of science.

The assumption that fighting is the only way to explore ideas is deeply rooted in Western civilization. It can be found in the militaristic roots of the Christian church and in our educational system, tracing back to all-male medieval universities where students learned by oral disputation.

Ong contrasts this with Chinese science and philosophy, which eschewed disputation and aimed to "enlighten an inquirer," not to "overwhelm an opponent." As Chinese anthropologist Linda Young showed, Chinese philosophy sees the universe in a precarious balance that must be maintained, leading to methods of investigation that focus more on integrating ideas and exploring relations among them rather than on opposing ideas and fighting over them.

Cultural training plays a big role too. Mediterranean, German, French and Israeli cultures encourage dynamic verbal opposition for women as well as men. Japanese culture discourages it for men as well as women. Perhaps that's why Japanese talk shows rarely include two guests (they'll have one or three or more), to avoid the polarized debates that our talk shows favor.



[Some argue that the default state of the human species is war. When we don't know what else to do, we fight. However, a recent study by UCLA psychologists throws this into doubt.

True, men under stress do tend to fall back on "fight or flight" as the first line of defense. Their default state is: hide, or hit someone. Women, however, cope with stress quite differently. They seek social contact or turn to nurturing�pick up the phone or tend the children. In fact, what principal investigator Shelley Taylor called this "tend and befriend" strategy for coping with stress seems characteristic of females of many species.

No one had seen this pattern before, Taylor said, because, until recently, most studies focused on males�the universal default mode.

Given that the world is run mostly by men, however, it's going to take no small amount of imagination to think outside this particularly lethal box. Certainly, it's happened before. Against all odds, there is quasi-democracy in Russia, quasi-peace in Northern Ireland; Nelson Mandela prevailed in South Africa and even Richard Nixon went to China.

Default is not the only option. In fact, Taylor and colleagues conclude that the "tend and befriend" strategy might well be responsible for the fact that women live on average 7 1/2 years longer than men.

And please, let's not talk about women like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice. They've had to act macho to succeed in a macho world. Cole is suggesting what would happen if we embraced our feminine side and elected someone who embodied them to lead us. You know, a peacemaker�someone like Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King.]

Perfect. Thank you!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1441289,00.html


'They can't train you for the reality of Iraq. You can't have a mass grave with dogs eating the people in it'

Two years after the war began, a growing number of US troops are refusing to return to Iraq

Suzanne Goldenberg in Fort Stewart, Georgia
Saturday March 19, 2005



At the same time that Kevin Benderman's unit was called up for a second tour in Iraq with the Third Infantry Division, two soldiers tried to kill themselves and another had a relative shoot him in the leg. Seventeen went awol or ran off to Canada, and Sergeant Benderman, whose family has sent a son to every war since the American revolution, defied his genes and nine years of military training and followed his conscience.


Between 40,000 and 50,000 military personnel are in Iraq despite serious medical conditions that should have ruled them out of combat, according to the National Gulf War Resource Centre. The GI Rights Hotline, which counsels troops, says it fielded 32,000 calls last year from soldiers seeking an exit from the military, or suffering from post-combat stress.

Others vote with their feet. Last year the Pentagon admitted that 5,500 of its forces had gone awol, although it claims many returned to their units after resolving personal crises. Some abandoned the country altogether - like Chris Cornell, a Third ID private. At 24, he had been in the military for two years, joining up in search of a better life than in the Ozark mountains of Arkansas. Army life had begun to pall - "because of the crap that goes on" - when the division began to prepare for Iraq. He didn't want to go. "I didn't sign up to kill people. I couldn't live with myself," he told the Guardian. At first, he tried to get a medical discharge, deliberately failing dozens of physical training tests.

It's that "touchy-feely" fear of the word "peace".....

If you have "peace" - THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR RELIGION.

It's the goal of all the "organized"....to be at "peace".....right?

THAT'S where it gets scarry for the "Onward Christian Soldiers"......what to do, what to do....

"You can go with THIS
You can go with THAT"
~Weapon of Choice

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/11/10_400.html

Breaking Ranks

After returning home to Pennsylvania, Mike Hoffman founded Iraq Veterans Against the War. "You realize that the people to blame for this are not the ones you are fighting."


By David Goodman
Photographs by: Jeff Reidel

October 11, 2004


MIKE HOFFMAN would not be the guy his buddies would expect to see leading a protest movement. The son of a steelworker and a high school janitor from Allentown, Pennsylvania, he enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1999 as an artilleryman to “blow things up.” His transformation into an activist came the hard way—on the streets of Baghdad.

When Hoffman arrived in Kuwait in February 2003, his unit’s highest-ranking enlisted man laid out the mission in stark terms. “You’re not going to make Iraq safe for democracy,” the sergeant said. “You are going for one reason alone: oil. But you’re still going to go, because you signed a contract. And you’re going to go to bring your friends home.” Hoffman, who had his own doubts about the war, was relieved—he’d never expected to hear such a candid assessment from a superior. But it was only when he had been in Iraq for several months that the full meaning of the sergeant’s words began to sink in.


“The reasons for war were wrong,” he says. “They were lies. There were no WMDs. Al Qaeda was not there. And it was evident we couldn’t force democracy on people by force of arms.”

When he returned home and got his honorable discharge in August 2003, Hoffman says, he knew what he had to do next. “After being in Iraq and seeing what this war is, I realized that the only way to support our troops is to demand the withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq.” He cofounded a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and soon found himself emerging as one of the most visible members of a small but growing movement of soldiers who openly oppose the war in Iraq.

Dissent on Iraq within the military is not entirely new. Even before the invasion, senior officers were questioning the optimistic projections of the Pentagon’s civilian leaders, and several retired generals have strongly criticized the war. But now, nearly two years after the first troops rolled across the desert, rank-and-file soldiers and their families are increasingly speaking up. Hoffman’s group was founded in July with 8 members and had grown to 40 by September. Another organization, Military Families Speak Out, began with 2 families two years ago and now represents more than 1,700 families. And soldier-advocacy groups are reporting a rising number of calls from military personnel who are upset about the war and are thinking about refusing to fight; a few soldiers have even fled to Canada rather than go to Iraq.

http://rwor.org/a/002/support-gi-refuse-fight.htm

Support the GIs Who Refuse to Fight!

by Philip Watts

Revolution #002, May 15, 2005, posted at revcom.us

May 10 is a National Day of Action for GI Resisters. This is the day before sailor Pablo Paredes and soldier Kevin Benderman are scheduled to go before military court martial tribunals for their opposition to the Iraq war. Both men applied for conscientious objector status and both were denied. They are facing jail time as well as financial penalties. The May 10 actions in support of GI resisters are being called by Courage-To-Resist, which can be reached at CourageToResist.org.

Pablo Paredes, a Navy petty officer, refused to board his ship in December 2004 as it left the San Diego Naval Station. In a public act of conscious opposition to the war, he wore a T-shirt which said, "Like a cabinet member, I resign." At the time of his refusal, Pablo said he hoped his protest might inspire other GI’s to refuse to take part in the war.

Kelly Dougherty was one of those who brought this point out. Kelly was in Kuwait and Nasiriya, Iraq, from 2003 to 2004 working as a military police sergeant. She escorted Halliburton fuel trucks from Kuwait to Iraq. We talked about the horrible conditions of the Iraqi people living under the U.S. occupation. We also talked about the process of GI resistance. Kelly had questions going into the war and became increasingly opposed to the war during her time in Iraq. When she came back to the U.S. she met IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) and started actively speaking out against the war.

Kelly said, "I would be thrilled if everyone getting ready to go over to Iraq said, ’No, I’m not going. This war is wrong. I won’t continue to fight it,’ ’cause obviously you can’t fight a war without soldiers. But I know that’s not going to happen. I think what a lot of people who haven’t been in the military or who don’t know friends or family in the military might not realize is how difficult it is to speak out.

What I also got from numerous conversations with Iraq war veterans in North Carolina was a picture of the mindless and unquestioning culture in the U.S. military. They talked about how group-think is imbued, starting from basic training, so that while soldiers may have questions, they don’t dare raise them. They’re trained not to stand out, especially if they disagree with what is going on, because there are "repercussions."

I’ve also heard from a number of GI’s who are not necessarily anti-war activists though they had questions about why the U.S. was in Iraq. A common theme among them is, "You have a job to do, you signed up, so you do your job and get home safe." But what does it mean if your "job" consists of taking part in a rape of a whole country and degrading and murdering ordinary Iraqi people as part of war for empire? What is the right and honorable thing to do—to go on doing such a "job," or to take a stand and refuse?

This goes to the heart of why it is so important that there are GI’s who are refusing to take part in the war and resisting orders to go back or go at all. This war and occupation of the Iraqi people have very serious consequences. We could start with the fact that over 100,000 Iraqi lives have been taken so far. And I keep thinking about Kelly’s point— that it takes more courage to refuse to fight on principle than to go along with the war.

Just look at the lives of the Iraqi people under U.S. occupation. Take something as basic as language, for example. As in every other war the U.S. government has waged on the people, racist language is used against a whole people. In Vietnam it was "gook," in Somalia it was "sami," and in Iraq it’s "haji." This is a way the military dehumanizes the Iraqi people so that U.S. troops can more easily kill them. It feeds a culture of fear and hatred for the Iraqi people that has been brought to light by a number of troops who have returned from Iraq.

One of them is Aidan Delgado, who returned from Iraq in 2004 after serving six months in Nasiriyah and six months at Abu Ghraib. Aidan grew up as a diplomat’s son and spent his teenage years in Egypt. Because of this he had a deeper understanding of Arab culture than others. Sometimes he was asked to translate for the military. After seeing the increasing brutality of the U.S. troops, he turned in his weapon and filed for conscientious objector status. They didn’t let him leave, however, and his unit ended up being stationed at Abu Ghraib where he was a mechanic. While there he witnessed all kinds of horrors that the U.S. troops were committing against Iraqi prisoners and documented it with gut-wrenching photographs that can be seen on the internet.

Aidan was recently quoted in a New York Times column by Bob Herbert. Aidan said that he "witnessed incidents in which an Army sergeant lashed a group of children with a steel Humvee antenna, and a Marine corporal planted a vicious kick in the chest of a kid about 6 years old." Aidan told Herbert, "There were many occasions when soldiers or marines would yell and curse and point their guns at Iraqis who had done nothing wrong."

Aidan said, "Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They’d keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people’s heads." When Aidan opposed and questioned this, his fellow troops answered, "Look, I hate being in Iraq. I hate being stuck here. And I hate being surrounded by hajis."

The experience at Abu Ghraib was even more harrowing and revolting for Aidan. The grotesque inhuman treatment of Iraqi prisoners has been exposed for the world to see. But only a few low-ranking military have even been indicted for the torture and abuse which was sanctioned at the highest levels of the military and government.

Aidan witnessed the shooting of unarmed prisoners by U.S. troops. Herbert wrote, "Mr. Delgado confronted a sergeant who, he said, had fired on the detainees. ’I asked him,’ said Mr. Delgado, ’if he was proud that he had shot unarmed men behind barbed wire for throwing stones. He didn’t get mad at all. He was, like, ’Well, I saw them bloody my buddy’s nose, so I knelt down, I said a prayer, I stood up, and I shot them down.’"

It is exactly this kind of treatment of the people—the brutality and the murder that is being carried out—which makes it so important for U.S. troops who are becoming conscious to break ranks and dare to resist. Such resistance has consequence. And not to resist when you understand this war is wrong, unjust, and immoral has consequences too. And this is why people very broadly must support those GI’s who do dare to resist—especially those being persecuted by the military and the government.

http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-04-...-operationtruth

Back from Iraq, a veteran finds his voice
By Eliza Strickland

High resolution photos and text-only
optruth1.JPG

Paul Rieckhoff, the founder of Operation Truth, prefers emailed newsletters to street protests. "It's a new war and a new movement," he says. (Serena Hedison/CNS)
optruth12.JPG

Paul Rieckhoff, the founder of Operation Truth, says he wants the organization to be a megaphone for soldiers serving in Iraq. (Serena Hedison/CNS)

On a March night in 2003, Lt. Paul Rieckhoff sat on a plane with an M-16 rifle between his legs, wondering what to expect from the invasion of Iraq.

The plane was quiet. During the roughly 7,000-mile trip from Ft. Stewart, Ga., to an airport in the Kuwait desert, Rieckhoff’s fellow soldiers nodded to the music on their headphones and looked at photographs of home. It reminded him of the lull before college football games, he said, when his teammates gathered their strength.

“We didn’t know how bad the war was going to be,” said Rieckhoff, 30, in a recent interview. An officer in the National Guard, he had volunteered for combat out of a sense of duty and knew that he might be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. “We didn’t know if we were all going to die,” he said.

After 10 months in Baghdad, Rieckhoff returned to the United States physically intact but disillusioned. He believed the soldiers had borne the brunt of a mismanaged war. The government had dishonored their sacrifice and commitment, he said, by failing to equip the troops to fight an insurgency and by cutting funding to the Department of Veteran Affairs.

In June 2004, Rieckhoff formalized his dissent and founded Operation Truth, an organization of Iraq war veterans that attempts to inject the soldier’s perspective into the national debate. The veterans bring immediacy to the news by explaining how the lack of body armor affected them in battle, or how insufficient counseling made the transition back to civilian life more difficult.

It’s a perspective that has been sorely lacking, said Rieckhoff. “The news shows have a four-star general behind the desk, but he probably wasn’t in this war,” he said. “Our guys are from where the rubber meets the road, or where the meat meets the metal. It’s not generals who are getting blown up by roadside bombs, it’s our guys.”

Hypocrites and Liars
by Cindy Sheehan

The media are wrong. The people who have come out to Camp Casey to help coordinate the press and events with me are not putting words in my mouth, they are taking words out of my mouth. I have been known for sometime as a person who speaks the truth and speaks it strongly. I have always called a liar a liar and a hypocrite a hypocrite. Now I am urged to use softer language to appeal to a wider audience. Why do my friends at Camp Casey think they are there? Why did such a big movement occur from such a small action on August 6, 2005?

I haven't had much time to analyze the Camp Casey phenomena. I just read that I gave 250 interviews in less than a weeks time. I believe it. I would go to bed with a raw throat every night. I got pretty tired of answering some questions, like: 'What do you want to say to the President?' and 'Do you really think he will meet with you?' However, since my mom has been sick I have had a chance to step back and ponder the flood gates that I opened in Crawford, TX.

I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait. The article reminded me of something I said at the Veteran's for Peace Convention the night before I set out to Bush's ranch in my probable futile quest for the truth. This is what I said:

"I got an e-mail the other day and it said, 'Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity '. There's people on the fence that get offended.'

And you know what I said? 'You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?'

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.

One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that 'Freedom isn't Free' but I don't see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don't think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

Contrary to what the mainstream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, TX. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I left even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: 'My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it.' I have never said 'pretty please' or 'thank you.' I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses 'Patriotic Rhetoric.' I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.

Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called 'fair and balanced' mainstream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it by telling any truth of their own. Now they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinize anything I have ever said when they never scrutinize anything that George Bush said or is saying. Instead of asking George or Scotty McClellan if he will meet with me, why aren't they asking the questions they should have been asking all along: 'Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to 'complete the mission' when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is and you can change it at will like you change your cowboy shirts?'

Camp Casey has grown and prospered and survived all attacks and challenges because America is sick and tired of liars and hypocrites and we want the answers to the tough questions that I was the first to dare ask. THIS is George Bush's accountability moment and he is failing miserably. George Bush and his advisers seriously 'misunderestimated' me when they thought they could intimidate me into leaving before I had the answers, or before the end of August. I can take anything they throw at me, or Camp Casey. If it shortens the war by a minute or saves one life, it is worth it. I think they seriously 'misunderestimated' all mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?

The Camp Casey movement will not die until we have a genuine accounting of the truth and until our troops are brought home. Get used to it George, we are not going away.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0820-30.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid...4217#transcript

Monday, March 28th, 2005
Pablo Paredes Faces Court Martial For Refusing to Fight in Iraq

On Friday, the Navy announced that Paredes will face a special court-martial, the military equivalent of a civilian misdemeanor trial. The charges against him include absence without leave and missing movement. [includes rush transcript] The US military has announced another court-martial of a service member for refusing to go to Iraq. Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes is a weapons control technician who joined the Navy in 2000. In December, he refused to board the USS Bonhomme Richard as it left for a six-month tour in the Pacific and Indian oceans. At the time, he said he hoped his protest might inspire other sailors, soldiers and Marines to refuse to take part in the war. On Friday, the Navy announced that Paredes will face a special court-martial, the military equivalent of a civilian misdemeanor trial. The charges against him include absence without leave and missing movement. The 23-year-old from the Bronx, New York, faces a maximum of one year in jail, a forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank and a bad-conduct discharge if he's convicted. No date for a court-martial has been set. Paredes has applied for contentious objector status and a decision is expected next week. A Navy chaplain who met with Paredes in January wrote that it was "morally imperative" that his request be granted. When we last spoke to him, he was underground. Pablo Paredes joins us on the line now from San Diego.

* Pablo Paredes, sailor in the US Navy who was classified as a "fugitive deserter" by the military for refusing orders to board a ship heading to Iraq last December. On Friday, the Navy announced it was bringing charges against him.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,337091,00.html

US Military Personnel Growing Critical of the War in Iraq

By Georg Mascolo and Siegesmund von Ilsemann

US military officials are becoming increasingly vocal in their criticism of the war in Iraq, telling Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that more troops are needed to prevail over the insurgents. Moreover, recruitment is down and more reservists and members of the National Guard are being sent to Baghdad.

The war is over, at least as far as Darrell Anderson is concerned. Anderson, a 22-year-old GI from Lexington, Kentucky, deserted a week ago, heading across the US' loosely controlled border with Canada. When his fellow soldiers in the First US Tank Division, stationed in Hessen, Germany, ship out to Iraq for their second tour of duty, he'll be in Canada.

Anderson spent seven months in Iraq last year as a part of a unit assigned the dangerous mission of guarding police stations in Baghdad. He was wounded by grenade shrapnel during an insurgent attack, was awarded the Purple Heart and allowed to spend Christmas at home in the United States. But instead of returning to duty, Anderson fled to Toronto.

Now he's a deserter and a warrant has been issued for his arrest. If apprehended, he faces several years in a US military prison. In justifying his desertion, Anderson says: "I can't go back to this war. I don't want to kill innocent people." He talks about the constant pressure soldiers face to make decisions in the daily grind of war. Once, when a car came too close to their Baghdad checkpoint, his commanding officer ordered him to shoot, even though Anderson could only make out a man and children in the vehicle. The soldier refused. "Next time you shoot," his commanding officer barked.

On another occasion, the safety on his automatic weapon was all that prevented Anderson from losing control. "I was holding a heavily injured comrade in my arms, there was blood all over the place, and Iraqis were cheering all around us," he recalls. "I was so furious that all I wanted to do was kill someone, anyone."

Anderson has now applied for political asylum in Canada. His attorney, Jeffry House, was once one of the 50,000 draft dodgers who fled to Canada to avoid serving in the Vietnam War. Deserters who are now fleeing to Canada to avoid the Iraq war have reawakened memories of an exodus that took place more than thirty years ago. House says: "Every day I get calls from at least two soldiers looking for a way out."

I think it would be good to know where you REALLY stand.

What if we developed and deployed in Iraq a force comprised of Terminator-like robots (of course, they'd remotely-controlled rather than AI to avoid the eventuality of them turning on us), and pulled out our human troops:

Then, would you be ok with the Global War on Terror (GWOT)? Do you oppose our efforts because you really fear harm will come to our Soldiers, or do you hate the use of military force under any circumstance, no matter how justified? Would you have been opposed to the GWOT if 9/11 happened on Bill Clinton's "watch" and he responded in the exact same manner? (BTW: this isn't a far-fetched as it sounds.)

I stand 100% against this Bush regime, which had brought Americans into war with Iraq illegally. As I have stated before several times, our troops are to be used to defend our country when a defined enemy encroachs our air space and or waters, with intent to attack, then we shall defeat them with all our might.

Yes, no matter what president is in office, my answers stands firm.

What's illegal about it ghost?

Site a statute.

For what it's worth #780, pure and simple, the UN did not vote for this IraqNam lie war of BushCo.

As I thought, you can't site a statute. If I an opinion or subjective answer I know where to get it now.

Do a word count on one of Senator Kerry's campaign speeches an see how many times the word ,"fight" is used and you will see what this author is getting at. If
you wish to take it to the next level, do a word frequency count on one of
Hillary Clinton's speeches 10 years ago and a count on one of her speeches
made during the past two years and see how more frequently the word, "fight"
has crept into her speech pattern. Is our culture so sick that a woman has to
become a man in order to get elected?

yeah, the Marine Corps under BushCo command.

No, you don't get off quite that easy.

You said the United States Military committed an illegal act. You wouldn't provide a site of a statute for which you are elluding to. The only response you gave was some vague reference of if the United Nations did explicitly authorize it the United States has no right to enter into a war.

Why don't you think that one over for a bit, do you really want to subjugate the national interest of the United States to foreign powers? You might but I bet a majority of the people in America don't.

The Pentagon, Congress and the entire BushCon regime committed the illegal act. The military followed it's orders.

The national interest has been subjugated for decades.... that had caused several foreign leaders and their groups to resiste and hate American Imperialists... Neocons and BushCons. When Reagan shuffled his way into office, that triggered more bad foreign relations...per more CIA covert operations. Bush I and Bush II were the icing on that same cake. These foreign nations has known for a long time that they must build up their defense arms in order to resist the New World Order crusade and GW has sealed our fate in those coming wars in the near future. So, as you paint a picture that it's those foreign nations who are the instigators against America, andin reality, it has been US who have punched them in the face a long time ago and all that's happening now is all these false fronts for invading other nations under the guise of spreading Western Democracy...of which is against the majority of such nations. Of course, such false fronts are making the Neocons and Bushcons that much more richer via the taxpayers monies. Quite a nice super scheme as long as there's enough sheeple to buy into this bullcrap.

What do you have against foreign nations simply living their lives as they have for 100s of years? Just why is it that we need to have Western belief forced on them? Then why do WE have to pay for it? If you have a club of Neocons and Radical Republicans all hot to trot for these wars, then gather your OWN monies and go into those countries and spread that democracy youself!

As the topic suggests, there's some who understand this scheme and they refuse to be a part of it any more. This thread recognizes them.

What illegal acts? Just you and the antiwar movement saying illegal acts have been committed doesn't make it so. Don't you think if an illegal act had been committed there are a few folks in congress who would be overjoyed to file articles of impeachment? All you people who keep making unsubstantiated claims only succeed in making yourself look like lunatics.

IraqNam bubba!

Apparently you are having a bit of difficulty reading, let me be a little more precise:

If an illegal act had been committed there are a few folks in congress who would be overjoyed to file articles of impeachment?

illegal act - Illegal, or unlawful, is either prohibitted or not authorized by law. In general, conduct is made illegal by statute, rule, or regulation.
Rules make conduct illegal in a non-legal setting. For example, rules often dictate how a game is played.
Statutes make conduct illegal and are punishable by law. Violation of a statute can result in civil forfeiture or criminal prosecution.
Regulations are created by administrative agencies. Violation of a regulation often results in administrative law proceedings or legal action.

Impeachment - Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.
Conviction of officials involves an overturning of the normal constitutional procedures by which individuals achieve high office (election, ratification or appointment) and because it generally requires a supermajority, typically only those deemed to have seriously abused their offices will suffer impeachment.

Do you understand? I don't know how to make it easier for you to understand.

I understand your BushConic ignorance. I know what you were fishing for #780... you want to see the Pentagon or Congress have it in writing that they went to war in Iraq illegally. Of course we all know that's not in writing by those Neocons and BushCons in this govt body and corrupt Pentagon mafia. That would be like Cheney facing the music for all his illegal actions under Halliburton... or Bush reflecting back to his sorry ass military duty and admitting that he was awol. It will never happen, and you, me and the rest of the planet knows it. Real minds knows that the Iraq invasion was trumped up and preplanned for the Neocon profits and further control of the Middle East and Central Asia per the PNAC.

But just to back my opinions, here this...not that it means anything to you, for you have arready spent yrs lying on behalf of your Goober in Thief misCommander.



In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later stated that the subsequent invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences," which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to overthrow the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers," no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council [29]. Such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and their invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, argued in November 2003, that the invasion was against international law, but still justified [30], [31]. There is still much disagreement among international lawyers on whether prior resolutions, relating to the 1991 war and later inspections, permitted the invasion.

The United States also began preparations for an invasion of Iraq, with a host of diplomatic, public relations, and military preparations.


Administration has stated that they will not answer the questions.

Under the United States Constitution, presidents do not have authority to declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation, although under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president can send troops to a country without congress's consent for 60-90 days. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected.[95] Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily[96], and Congress delegated its war powers to the President[97]; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.
[edit]


International law

Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed. This was also the position of the UK and the US at the time the resolution was decided. On the day of the vote the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, Resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions."[98]

Until a few days before the war, it was the position of the UK, the main US ally in the war, that a further resolution would be desirable before the UK would go to war.

Some have said that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self defence, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security council under Article 42. Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war. The coalition formed around the USA argued that another understanding of the resolution is possible, although Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." [99]

The Bush administration argued that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "all necessary means," which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. If a war can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could face war for failing to meet the conditions of the cease-fire. Such is the purpose of using a cease-fire agreement in place of a peace treaty; the resumption of war is the penalty for, and thus deterrent of, engaging in the prohibited action(s). For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952[100].

Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as invalid under any resolution still in effect in March, 2003. Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of defence, and so violated the UN charter. However, none have called for the security council to consider sanctions against the United States or the other nations involved, both because of an effort to restore warmer relationships with the US, and because the attempt would be futile since the US has a veto in the Security Council.

The United States and United Kingdom claimed, and continue to claim, that it was a legal action which they were within international law to undertake. Some in the media have called the good faith of the Security Council into question on this matter. [101] [102] One argument is that the United Nations itself, along with the three opponents of the Iraq War on the Security Council, France, Russia, and China, all benefited financially (in some cases, perhaps illegally) from transactions with the Saddam Hussein regime under the Oil for Food program; [103] and that the leaders of these three countries, along with Kofi Annan, fought against a second UN resolution not out of higher principle but in order to keep these contracts. Additionally, the resistance of the Security Council and the UN as a whole to the invasion of Iraq has been attributed to Anti-Americanism and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA. In the case of France, it has also been attributed an attempt to court the Arab world and its local Muslim population. [104]

On 28 April 2005, the UK government published the full advice given by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of the war. The publication of this document followed the leaking of the summary to the press the day before. In a Labour press conference, Tony Blair responded to a question from journalist Jon Snow asking whether the full report could be published by saying 'we may as well, you've seen most of it already'. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. Saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action," it clearly stated that invasion for the purpose of regime change was illegal. [105]
[edit]

Downing Street memo

On 1 May 2005, a related UK document known as the Downing Street memo, detailing the minutes of a meeting on 26 July 2002, was apparently leaked to The Times. British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman has called the document "nothing new." The document corroborates the information in the full advice of Lord Goldsmith: "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.," and states furthermore that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." and that "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.." On 5 May, John Conyers and 89 members of congress asked George W. Bush, in a formal letter, to answer some questions about the document, including whether he or anyone in his administration disputes its accuracy. [106] The Bush
U.S. law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

There are too many women married to the military who would see 'avoiding war' as 'unemployment'.

There are too many other women married to mercenaries in various countries in Europe, USA, South Africa, who are only too glad to see the big pay packets they get for their dubious work.

There are too many elite families with women, wives and mothers, who make a killing from the sale of weapons.

Too many Americans and Britons are making money manufacturing weapons.

And if there is a majority of women who do not like war, and want to have no part in it, people like Rush Limbaugh have called them feminists and made them seem responsible for the moral failures of their families.

I am glad I live in Japan and even if the USA and Britain has the draft, I think that Japan would not go along with it. Japan believes in business, not killing.

Actually Marine the answer is simple. See the Nurenburg trials in 1946. People were hanged and did large prison sentenses for waging wars of agression which were considered crimes against humanity. In other words war crimes. The attack on Iraq is a war of agression on a third world country that did not have the means to attack us or really defend itself. I see no real difference between the attack on Poland in 1939 and the attack on Iraq in 2003.

I wonder if my friend knows that kid. My friend is Marine stationed at Camp Pendleton and was deployed to Iraq on September 5th. Hmm.

Methinks my bride of 35 years, 26 of which was spent as a military wife, might heartily disagree with you on this one. So would most of the spouses of our acquaintances who were/are servin' in the military, eh? What would lead you to make a statement like this? Might be you'd get some degree of disagreement from people in China, Guam, the Philippines, Malaysia and a few other spots in that part of the world, eh?

No David, people were hanged and did long prison sentences for committing atrocities. When you can bring me something which says the United States has committed atrocities then I will listen to you.

Your argument that the United States is a criminal nation based upon your arguments stinks like a two day old dead carp.

Currently I have no one on ignore but when you compare the USA to Nazi Germany I think it's justified.

You are half right #780 in that this entire nation of ours has NOTHING under this corrupt loser regime. Oh I know.. it's not a loser regime when in fact it flourishes in it's corrupt BLOOD profits that it steals from their own brothers of this nation.

You are spewing exactly what the BushCons spew.... lies under a controlled govt environment and a filtered media who reports what they tell them to and do as they say. That's where your information comes from which resembles the style of Johnny Cochran of trickery and loopholes. Based on that pile of Bush dong, you pretend to have a case to push in this forum. You only convince the RAs in here... while the others knows what a warped piece of Bush dribble you are. Doesn't mean that you are a complete horse's ass in real life, but in here it sure means that you still in your own juvenile world and stroke your own ego to the tune of Popeye does Dallas.

If you wish you proceed further, lets get to know you more. It appears to me that you feel that any war is worthy. If the BushCons presented a nifty war package for invading Iran, Syria, N Korea, and Venezuela within the next 2 years.... are you up for such war action for good ole America? To what extent does it take for you to avoid war? Or are all wars game for you in your Johnny Wayne action comics?

Once again, you avoided the questions... that pertains to the topic of this thread.
You best need to stay in RA world where your propaganda floats best.

Acually Marine that was insulting. I am part of the USA. I do not believe in attacking thirld world nations in wars of agression. I was refering to the Bush administration as war criminals. If you wish to lump yourself in with them, be my guest. Leave me out of it. Actually there is a difference between Poland and Iraq now that I think about it. Poland was actually better able to defend itself than Iraq.

We just can't touch you #780. You've cornered the market on ignorance.... sprinkled with tons of govt dense too. It's your RA world....filled with it's fake toys.... enjoy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7337109/site/newsweek/

‘An Illegal, Immoral Order’
An American soldier explains why he is refusing to fight in Iraq

By Tracy McNicoll
Newsweek
Updated: 12:50 p.m. ET March 30, 2005

March 30 - When his unit of the 82nd Airborne Division was getting ready to deploy to Iraq last year, U.S. Army Pfc. Jeremy Hinzman started fighting a battle of his own—in Canada. Hinzman, 26, was the first of at least eight U.S. soldiers to apply for refugee status there in the last 15 months. Many are already veterans of the post-9/11 wars. One earned a Purple Heart on his first tour in Iraq. Hinzman himself served seven months in Afghanistan. But all risk prison sentences in the United States for desertion if they are forced to return. Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffry House, who is himself a Vietnam-era draft evader, estimates about 100 U.S. soldiers have opted for the snows of Toronto rather than the Sunni Triangle, and have been watching the case closely. Last Thursday, Private Hinzman, his Vietnamese-American wife and infant son saw their refugee claims rejected. Next stop, Canadian federal court and the beginning of an appeals process that may take years. NEWSWEEK's Tracy McNicoll spoke to Hinzman about his legal battle to escape what he calls an "illegal war":

NEWSWEEK: You started basic training in January 2001, before September 11. Peacetime.
Jeremy Hinzman: Well, I don't think it's ever peacetime in America. I think we're always involved in some sort of war or action against somebody, whether it be overtly or covertly. If you look at U.S. history, we're doing something, be it Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, you name it. I didn't have any sort of delusions that I was going to be serving in a peacetime Army.

When did you first have second thoughts about your role in the Army?
It started at about week five of basic training. In the beginning I was really gung-ho and I ate it all up, and I was still loving it until the day I left. It's kind of this compulsive-addictive thing, feeling a part of something bigger; it's almost religious. But, on the same token, at about week five, I kind of had my Road to Damascus moment. We were marching to the chow hall, yelling "Trained to kill! Kill we will!" over and over again, which we had done every day, and it was kind of a mantra. But on that occasion, our drill sergeants decided our rendition of it wasn't enthusiastic enough and they were threatening us with push-ups ... So everybody just got crazy! And they were red in the face, going hoarse, and it was just out of some sort of dystopian novel. "Trained to kill, kill we will," and it escalated and escalated and, I looked around me and I just said, "What am I doing?" But on the same token, I had enlisted, and it's not like you can put in your two weeks’ notice, right?

So you applied for conscientious-objector status?
After a year and a half, I felt that I was living a lie. I had all this stuff internally that was telling me, “I can't kill." I'll be happy to be Operation Human Shield, to be a pack mule and carry stuff, or be a combat medic and stick my neck out, no problem. If I die, that's the end. I mean we're all born with a death sentence and that's not what I have issues with. What I have issues with is taking other people's lives.

You did kitchen duty in Afghanistan before your conscientious-objector status was rejected. But before your unit was deployed to Iraq—where you would have faced combat duty—you left for Canada. Did your decision have anything to do with how you see the Afghanistan war versus how you see the Iraq war?
I think about that a lot. If I were the president of the United States, obviously I would be the commander in chief, and if what happened on September 11th—I can't say that I wouldn't do the same thing [invading Afghanistan] ... But Iraq is a whole other ballgame. I can't walk down the street and start punching guys out because they may potentially rape my wife. I need to wait until the guy's actually going to do it. No matter how scummy he may look or how mean he is to his family. It's great that Saddam's gone, I agree with that. However, like with what's going on in Kyrgyzstan right now with [protests against] President [Askar] Akayev, it's the responsibility of the people who live there to overthrow the bad regime. Because if somebody else goes and does it for them, motive is everything, and they're going to suspect their motives. And it just so happens that Iraq lies on the second-biggest oil reserve in the world and George Bush is—despite his idealism and everything else, which I do admire—in [thrall] to big business and big oil. And I'm not going to kill people or be killed to build a big gas station so people can drive Ford Expeditions. It's just not worth it.

Oh, it was ok when he was killing Afghanis? I understand now.

Jeremy Hinzman, U.S. Army Specialist
Jeremy Hinzman was a United States soldier in the elite infantry division, the 82nd Airborne.

He served in Afghanistan and, after returning to America, heard they were being sent to Iraq.

Hinzman thought the war would only benefit the likes of the Vice President’s old company Halliburton, which gained the lions share of post-war rebuilding contracts.

He also didn’t believe the stated reasons for the Iraq war.

So, one night he drove north to Canada to seek asylum. He is currently living in Vancouver with his wife Nga Nguyen and daughter Liam. His case is in Canadian courts to achieve refugee status.

" Lets get to know you more. It appears to me that you feel that any war is worthy. If the BushCons presented a nifty war package for invading Iran, Syria, N Korea, and Venezuela within the next 2 years.... are you up for such war action for good ole America? To what extent does it take for you to avoid war? Or are all wars game for you in your Johnny Wayne action comics?"

We're still waiting #780. Time to step up to the plate and take a swing at this easy question for you. Share with this fine forum what you think BushCo should do about attacking the countries listed above. Oh, I should have added in Cuba also... another irritating country the Repubs has been wanting to hit for a long long time. Give us your choice #780 since you love hanging out in these boring threads. Lets evaluate just how much you want to bomb them all, or in part, or maybe avoid such debacles of war. Or do you like the kind of wars like Iraq that was puppetted by our CIA via Saddam as it became more of a cakewalk event that makes ya all proud and fuzzy warm with how many civies we can waste at the flick of a switch? God forbid those camels that might become floatation devises for which the Iraqis could organize their navy and blast BushWorld USA away! What's it going to be #780..... how many more countries can we (BushCo) invade SOON and list the ones you want wasted.

Ghost, all you are waiting for is to be told how thoroughly ignorant your are of how the military functions. When I was on active duty it was not my job to avoid war, it was my job to be ready for war.

It wasn't in my MOS to be who toots the whistle.

Once again you vast miltary experience has failed you. Tell us again how long you were in the Army ghost, stockade time omitted.

You scared little parasite. Still avoiding my simply questions... but then, that does partly keep you a little on topic for a change. I can use that word to best describes you... Avoiding direct questions.

I'm glad you were all snuggy in your barracks awaiting the call of war killer. Seems like you got to avoid the call to 'Nam as well... but you laid out some weak reasonings for that.... and to be honest with you... I could care less about your claims to your fames in your lifer world. You can be all you want to be...means nothing to me.

Now we wish to discuss things about 'Nam, as you before seem upset to hear anything about 'Nam. You have complained serveral months ago in here about the few times that I shared information about 'Nam with a few others .... and you also avoided my response back then as to why you were so upset with what information I shared about 'Nam and Iraq. I in fact asked you at least 4 times and you totally ignored it. So in truth, you are the one who avoids answering direct questions. There again, I am used to much of it. As I have previously stated as well, much of how I respond to you and your deligated RAs pals in here. So... as you 'all' try your hardest to make thigns look like it's only I who does not answer your questions (of which a lot of them are basically foolish) I do so just because I've learned that from you and your RA clubers. I do not treat others in here in the same manner though, for I respect them.

So based on that #780...you either live with what I feel like responding to you or simply put....'tough chit' By the way, I have reported my pull in the Army several times before. If you can't remember and or just wanting to play games as you normally do, again the answer is 'tough chit'. That's how I deal with control freaks. There's just some in life you can't control #780. That's a lesson in life for you right there.

Stay tuned.... more 'avoiding the war' posts will continue. Oh by the way ole brainwashed icon of cgcs, the articles in this thread pertain to those who have avoided war, as not about me. I did not avoid war.... only saw first hand and experienced what war does to one. I got to carry the guilt that our generation of chickenhawks inflicted on us.

Apparently from where you posted elsewhere of the numerous Article 15's you didn't get it when you where on active service either.

A few of the down sides of being in the military is most of time no one gives a flip what your opinion is, you got to do things you would rather not, you get sent place you may not want to go, and if you want to go someplace you may not get to go.

When I went to Grenada I didn't even know I was going to Grenada until I was sitting in a C-130 about an hour and a half before we jumped and to make matters worst, I didn't even know where Grenada was.

I got orders for Vietnam and before I was due to report they got cancelled. Was I disappointed? Hell no I wasn't disappointed.

The only time I ever volunteered for a combat was for the Gulf War. I didn't get to go and I wanted to go.

You see, I never got a court martial and I never got an article 15 because when they told me what I was going to do, I did it.

I really have a hard time understanding how you believe the military is a debating society. Is that how you got your article 15's?

Those 15s were lifer action dude. The lifers handed them out like candy. They wanted to act like we were still stateside in the frickin middle of hell... and so many of us were served those 15s because those lifers were sammy suckasses. Nothing else more to them.

Here's something that will blow your strarched shorts away. If I were not doing what I was supposed to, would you think they'd be wanting me to up my rank after 7-8 months over there? I was already acting NCO/OIC but they want me to make E-5. I refused. Does that sound like I wasn't doing my duty #780? I was a part of the killing machine over there ..... does that sound like I wasn't doing my 'duty' #780? You know you RAs forget that I was forced to be in that killing green machine. I didn't want it for a frickin' career.... nor was I anxious to get to fire all sorts of weapons and kill folks. I went when sammy held a gun to my head for he was going to ruin my life here in my own country if didn't go. So... funny thing is.... I matured and then I reflected back at all that took place... and now we are doing it all over again.... only thing that is missing is the draft.

See #780..... you don't get it. What...me worry? Hell no... here I share in the truth and exposure for what things really are. Those who avoids this war today I see as being much smarter than I was. Those who have been to Iraq are coming back for the most part awaken to the fact about how screwed up this regime and entire mess is. That's who I give credit to.

Everyone knows rank was passed out when someone went to Vietnam ghost. It was part of the deal.

If you were getting article 15's you deserved it, you may not think you did but you deserved it. For better than the first three years I was in the Marines I was a pretty poor example of what a Marine should be. I was what the lifers describe as a shitbird. I didn't get any article 15's and was about as screwed up an individual you could find. If I managed to avoid article 15s anyone could have avoided article 15s.

What did you do for a living ghost? Did the company you worked for ever go out of business, or get sold, or lay off people? How many different companies did you work for? Were you eligble for a pension after 20 years? How about health and dental, was that provided to you? What about a store where you could buy thing a bit cheaper than other stores. How about housing for your family, did your employer help you out?

That part about being forced is BS, even when Vietnam was going hot and heavy if a person didn't want to be in the military they could get out. It wasn't made easy and Uncle Sam screwed with you but if someone wanted out and was willing to put up with seven or eight months of harassment they got out.

Good God almighty #780.... I never realized that you were this far gone ignorant! Even your propaganda reports has crap wrong... but that's to be expected. You're not worth wasting these few lines on dreamchaser.... your extreme dense factor is way much too high to have 'any' conversation with. I'm glad that you in your own mind now claim you know just how it was in the 'Nam. You need that extra clout here to further bullcrap your suckies in here. Go for it killer.... you like playing the role so I can't really think of anyone else better to BS the folks here than you other than your personal popeye squad that floats around in here as well. They make for nice fake backup for you here, that's about it.

See you around in your jarine comics dude.... and besides, you really need to be giving more support for your national Goober as his ratings are dropping even further. Not that it means anything, but he'd sure would like to hear from you so to boost his plastic ego up.

Americans will hear more of the same like this interview with Mr Hoffman.... an Iraq vet. Too bad knowledge that troops learn from lie wars are not available before they take that wrong step initially that only supports these corrupt politicians that brings them their personal profits from such spilt blood.


http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/09_400.html


Mike Hoffman
Interviewed By Eva Steele-Saccio

October 11, 2004

Corporal Mike Hoffman knows firsthand why the United States' war in Iraq is the wrong war. Deployed with his Marine Corps unit in February 2003, Hoffman fought in both Tikrit and Baghdad. Though he had his doubts about the war from the start, he saw going to Iraq as a matter of professionalism and loyalty. But it soon became clear to him that the U.S. occupation was doing more harm than good -- to both Iraqis and Americans. "The hardest thing,” he says, "is knowing what we’ve done to the kids there."

After returning home with an honorable discharge last August, Hoffman decided to do something. Teaming up with a small group of fellow soldiers, Hoffman co-founded the organization Iraq Veterans Against the War, to push for an end to the Iraq occupation and advocate for the rights of returning soldiers. Hoffman has spoken at hundreds of antiwar events, giving voice to the concerns of soldiers who've returned from Iraq, and those who are still there and have doubts about the war but are nervous about speaking out.

Hoffman recently spoke to MotherJones.com by phone from his home in Pennsylvania.

MotherJones.com: Why did you form IVAW? What do you hope to achieve?

MikeHoffman: When I first came home and started speaking out last November, I think the only ones speaking at that point were myself, Steven Funk, who was protesting against the war before it had started, and Jimmy Massey. People started asking me, "Where are the rest of them? You can’t be the only one who feels this way about the war." I said just wait, there is going to be more of them coming. It’s just that I came home first. So just by doing what I was doing, I started running into more and more people who felt the same way. I met most of the co-founders either through Veterans for Peace, through Military Families Speak Out or meeting up with them at protests.

MJ.com: Why did you decide to found it?

MH: We had been talking for a while. And with Veterans for Peace National Convention coming up in July we all realized, Hey, we’re all going to be here together. The momentum behind this is really building up. We’re finding more and more people like us every single day. Now is the time for us to get together and formally announce that we’ve created this group. And that’s exactly what happened at the Veterans for Peace convention in Boston.

MJ.com: What are you guys doing now to build political pressure at home?

MH: Basically, we’re just trying to get our message out however we can. We’re doing a lot of press interviews, we’re getting a lot of offers to speak at college campuses and community gatherings, which we take up every chance we get. Also speaking at rallies and marches, basically just making our voice heard as loudly and clearly as possible.

MJ.com: Do you think vets can bring a degree of credibility to the anti-war movement that others can’t?

MH: Most definitely. I mean when somebody else comes out and speaks, the average American hears him and goes, oh he’s just some college-educated tree-hugger that doesn’t really know what’s going on in the world. But when the average American hears a veteran—be it from this conflict, Vietnam, WWII, Korea, whatever, somebody who has seen combat and knows what it means—people listen, more than they do to anyone else, because this is somebody who has been on the ground, knows what the realities are, knows what these things mean.

MJ.com: Did you oppose the war in Iraq from the start?

MH: I did oppose the war from the get-go, but it changed after going through Iraq. Before I went there, my reasons for being against the war were I guess more academic. I’d been reading the news articles. I didn’t believe in the claims of WMDs -- those aren’t just something you hide under someone’s bed. If Saddam had them, we would have some kind of tangible evidence. The idea that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda was laughable to anyone who had really taken any time to understand the Middle East.

After going to Iraq and seeing what he did there, the devastation that came upon the people of Iraq, the things that happened to the people who fought there. Luckily my unit itself, everyone came home, but I hear stories from my friends of people dying in their arms, of fearing for their lives and just watching their friends in front of them. This is something no one should ever go through, especially not for a lie.

MJ.com: So do you oppose war on principle?

MH: No, I’m not a pacifist. I do believe that, unfortunately, war is necessary. I don’t believe there is such thing as a just or unjust war; there are avoidable and unavoidable wars. Sometimes you have no choice but to go to war. And WWII, when we got involved in it, that was an unavoidable war. It could have been avoided in earlier times, but it became unavoidable. That doesn’t mean that the war was right, that doesn’t mean that we fought the war in a just manner. There were a lot of things on both ends that were horrible: the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fire-bombing of Dresden. Things like that weren’t justified, but they happen in war. War is horrible no matter what. There’s going to be atrocities, there’s going to be horrible things that happen in war. That’s why when we go to war we have to make sure that we’ve done everything to avoid that war.

MJ.com: Given that you disagreed with the war, how did you feel about going to fight in Iraq?

MH: I disagreed with the war but I went anyway, not because I agreed with the war but because my friends were going. Being in the military, I was going over with people I’ve known for four years. These were people that were basically family to me and I couldn’t keep a clear conscience by letting them go over and not go with them. I had to be there to protect them just like they were going to protect me.

MJ.com: What kept you going once you were there?

MH: It’s really the idea of getting your friends home alive, and that’s just it -- getting your friends home alive. [I] and my other friends who felt the same way about the war, we basically said to ourselves, Listen, we are going to do whatever it takes to get home in one piece and we’ll deal with the consequences of that later. That was the whole idea -- just get home, get the mission done as quickly as possible -- just get to Baghdad -- and then we’d go home.

MJ.com: Do you advocate bringing the troops home now?

MH: Yes, myself and IVAW—our primary goal is bring the troops home now. If you look at what’s going on over there, it’s becoming clearer and clearer every day as reports come back from the troops who are serving there and people higher up of what’s going on there, that the troops are the cause of the problem, they aren’t fixing anything. The Iraqis view us as occupiers, as they should—we are occupying their country. And as long as they feel that way, nothing is going to get accomplished.

MJ.com: If the U.S. were to pull out, what then?

MH: After the troops pull out, we can’t completely abandon Iraq. We still owe a lot to the people of Iraq. The years of sanctions, two wars against the people of Iraq. We have to help them rebuild. But the military is not the people to do it. We have to give them financial aid, we have to give them material aid and whatever else they want and need. It’s not what we want to give them, it’s what they want. We have to remember that we are there to aid them, not occupy them. That’s a very important thing that people tend to forget. We shouldn’t be occupying, we should be aiding them and that means that we have to listen to them and hear what their needs are. There’s obviously people in Iraq who want to move in the right direction. We’ve got to give them that chance to be heard.

MJ.com: Did you support the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?

MH: You see, Afghanistan is a lot more complicated and a lot different than Iraq. I think at first we were justified by going in there. This is where Osama bin Laden, his network was based, where they were operating out of. So going in there was something we needed to do. But where we screwed up is that we didn’t follow through, we didn’t conduct things correctly. This is where I go back to what we were talking about—an avoidable and unavoidable war. This, like any war, was avoidable years ago. You look at the fact that the U.S. has supported Osama Bin Laden in the past during the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, things like that. This has been a long time coming. We could have stopped this years ago. But we didn’t take those actions, so it became unavoidable.

What we haven’t done is follow through. We were hailing the sudden rise of women’s rights in Afghanistan, things like that. Well, if you look at Afghanistan now, all those positions that were held by women have been vacated, people are afraid to take over the office of women’s rights in Afghanistan because of numerous death threats and assassinations against those people. The warlords are starting to take back over. I’ve seen some independent news articles talking abou