BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert

Subject: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Mousey McConville
Date: 28 May 06 - 08:11 AM

More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces since the start of the 2003 Iraq war, the BBC has discovered.

During 2005 alone, 377 people deserted and are still missing. So far this year another 189 are on the run.


Some 900 have evaded capture since the Iraq war started, official figures say.

        
I am approached regularly by people who are seeking to absent themselves from service
says Justin Hugheston-Roberts

It is unclear how many troops are deserting because they do not want to go to Iraq and how many are doing so because of personal reasons such as family problems, BBC world affairs correspondent Jonathan Charles says.

Lawyers who represent members of the military at courts martial say that they are increasingly being contacted by people who want advice about getting out of having to serve in Iraq, even if they do not want to go to the extreme of deserting, a BBC correspondent has found.

So not all British troops have had a lobotomy ! Well done boys.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 28 May 06 - 09:47 AM

Bollocks, they are all volunteers, it's an ARMY for fucks sake not the YMCA.
If they don't like nasty guns and hard people they shouldn't have VOLUNTEERED.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 06 - 10:12 AM

It is obvious they had the Lobotomy early in life. If they did not want to do what an Army does, they would not have signed up to begin with.

The ones without the Lobotomy knew what they were doing. Of course, some of those did not sign up.

"Well done" my Ass! How about stupid or cowards?

(same with some in the US)

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,heddwyn
Date: 28 May 06 - 10:24 AM

At a recent anti war meeting in South Wales a very disturbed former serviceman on a hospital ship based off the Iraqi coast spoke in anguish about the terrible sights he had seen in the days and weeks following the invasion of Iraq.He saw Iraqi children with their limbs blown off by bombs brought on board to be treated .....he saw severe head wound cases and much ,much more. The serviceman was no more than about 23 and was obviously deeply traumatised by the horror that had been unleashed by Bush and his junior partner Blair.The young man is now very much opposed to the occupation of Iraq and wants those responsible brought to account in an international court of law.He is devastated by a war which he was party to.
Those who have deserted from their units and have refused to take part in an illegal occupation of a country are doing the right thing...put the warhawks in the dock....remember them...they never send their own kids to the war zone.
heddwyn

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 10:41 AM

This is another example of why threads started by 'GUESTS' should not be allowed.

This is part of an organized propaganda campaign.

Wonder if any of these activists took close-up pictures of bloody bodies from Saddam's reign of terror. There were 1.4 million such corpses.

No, because that would not fit their political agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 May 06 - 10:41 AM

Not that there is anything at all positive about this war, nor would I suggest that these individuals aren't leaving because of it, but it is always good to consider all sides of any discussion. From the same BBC news article:

Former defence junior minister Don Touhig disputed the findings, arguing that the evidence was purely anecdotal. "We've had lots of assertions of large numbers of people leaving the forces or going absent because of Iraq. In 2001 2.65% of the forces went absent... in 2005 it's 2.63%," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 06 - 11:40 AM

pdq...I suppose you think the Haditha massacre thread is "propaganda" too?

By your reckoning we are in Iraq to try to show what a good example we are for the rest of the world to follow.
The world can now see quite plainly that we are just as accomplished as Saddam on torture, terrorism of civilians, and good old fashioned murder of women and children.

I was sickened to find out that when the Haditha thread was first posted by "GUEST", the American media had assisted the military by covering up the whole episode.

In fact Guest should be congratulated by all here, for showing the US media how freedom and democracy SHOULD work...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 12:10 PM

Ake,

In the last three years, over 300,000 American soldiers have been cycled through Iraq. Fewer the 100 of them have been accused of serious wrong-doing.

These young men come from a country, the United States, where at least 1 in every 300 men is in prison for violent crime. They appear to be about 1/10 as likely to act-out their aggressions in the military as the would have in civilian life. You cannot expect perfect behavior from our military until the pool of people from which it is drawn is perfect. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

The daily body count from Saddam's 24 years of violence was 159 dead per day. Although some of those were Iranian, most were his own Iraqui citizens. Thanks to coalition efforts, the Iraqui body count is about 27 per day. That number could be reduced to zero if insurgents would stop the bombing and shooting and go home. Again, don't hold you breath waitin for that to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 06 - 12:32 PM

pdq..I always was against the Saddam regime, but the figures you quote are mainly based on deaths attributable to the sanctions which caused malnutrition and other health problems especially among young children.
Saddam was a murderous despot, but you must be blind if you think our leaders are not equally murderous and despotic.

Much of the "wrong doing" by our troops in Iraq has actually been sanctioned by our leaders. I'm thinking of the obliteration of towns like Fallujah where whole families were shot in their beds.
How are our troops to be called to account when they are ordered to carry out these atrocities?

Please don't try to excuse what is happening in Iraq. Its much too late for that!

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 12:58 PM

Ake,

You say "the figures you quote are mainly based on deaths attributable to the sanctions which caused malnutrition and other health problems especially among young children."

What crap! Saddam Hussein received about 70 billion in oil revenues in that time period. He used the money to build huge palaces and buy weapons. The numbers I used came from Amnesty Internalional and applied to death by violence. Had Hussein used the money to care for his citizens, young and old, he would still be in power.

Nice that so many can say "I did not support Saddam Hussein" but that means nothing. Empty words. He had to go and we willing to pay the price, in money and lives, to get the job done. As someone said "help or get out of the way". It is time for some of you to use this wasted enegy for positive purposes than sitting at home and criticizing the 'doers' of our world.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:15 PM

If our troops, many of whom were conscripts, had deserted in 1939-45 you pillocks wouldn't be singing their praises the way you're singing them now. You'd all be goose-stepping and speaking German now (yes, including the Welsh and Irish). Well, that's to say that the fair haired and blue-eyed amongst you would. The rest would be in labour camps or dead.
Some of you really do need to grow up and get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:16 PM

Wait until these soldiers come home, the way they came home from Viet Nam. Alot will come back destroyed by what they did or saw. Lives ruined with no treatment before release, hardly any treatment follow up treatment. Alot of trained killers with PTS, with no idea of how they're gonna fit back into society. When many of the soldiers came home from Viet Nam they were just shells waiting to die the death that they already suffered. Drunks, junkies, sure many did OK, not fine but just OK. From my own line of site I knew 2 who were alright. The rest, probably somewhere about 25-30 are still a mess & can't fuction properly (including my brother) or died an untimely death like many of my childhood & high school friends. Many ended up on the streets & many ended up in the prisons. We'll be paying this bill for generations to come. So these soldiers that are saying no to what they aready now will become of them good luck to them. I would love the government to GET THEIR MESSAGE. Young people should not be dying so old men can become powerful & rich. Nature's plan has always been the the young bury the old.

Shame on any of you who would push a death upon an another & then call them cowards or stupid for being in a situation that they hardly could imagine. This is NOT WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR!
They are told they'd have a job (when there aren't many), they're told they'd have career, that their traning would be valuable as a civilian (my brother who was a seal is still looking for a job as a killer & an underwater demo expert), that they'd earn a decent wage, 3 squares, a roof over their heads, dry shoes for their feet, glory just sign. They are trained to KILL.
   
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:19 PM

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

tells us that the cost of the war (US only) is at 284 billion as I write.

So let us not get too self -righteous about what Saddam spent his money on.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:20 PM

If the soldiers in Germany had done what these British soldiers have done, WWII would not be an issue.

I salute these British soldiers for doing what the soldiers in Germany during WWII should have done, but didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:27 PM

pdq...Exactly what are you "doers" of the World supposed to be doing this week?

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:46 PM

Most of the people killed by Saddam were killed during the time when the US was financing Saddam's murderous activities, and Saddam was doing his killing at the behest of and as proxy for the US. During the later years, the numbers of people being killed by Saddam had been reduced to a much smaller number. So using the excuse that getting rid of Saddam would reduce the numbers of people killed by him just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. More likely, the number of innocent civilians being killed by violence in Iraq has increased since the US led invasion as compared to the last few years of Saddam's rule.

During the last years of Saddam's rule, most of the people who died, did so as a result of the sanctions, not because of a lack of money (which Saddam diverted, as pdq has described) but because the way the sanctions were set up... even when the money was available, it was almost impossible to get certain life saving items into Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:09 PM

Sorry, CarolC, but "...Saddam's murderous activities" were financed by oil revenue, not by the US. Most of the weapons he bought during his 24 years of terror came from Russia. Look it up.

Just because someone owns a gun does not mean he will kill people with it. The choice is entirely that of the individual. Same for Saddam and his weapons.

Saddam was the worst thug since Hitler and Stalin. One should cringe at the thought of him having the resources the other two had. He would be ranked #1 goon of the 20th Century. We should all celebrate the fact that he is gone and try to do whatever we can for the new lawfull-elected Iraqui government.

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

Ake...look forward to the next issue of The Hulk...

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:17 PM

What are you doing in Iraq?

Looking for the fire exit!!

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: dianavan
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:35 PM

"You cannot expect perfect behavior from our military until the pool of people from which it is drawn is perfect."

Well then, maybe its time the 'perfect' sons of the rich and powerful should join the military.

I'd like to see the stastics regarding the family income level of the men who are actually fighting and dying in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:41 PM

Wrong on all counts, pdq...

"Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Saddam was the US' proxy fighter in its (the US') war against Iran. Saddam was killing people on behalf of the United States. If Saddam was the worst thing since Hitler and Stalin, then that makes the US the worst thing since Hitler and Stalin as well, since he could not have done the things he did without our help, including attaining the position of dictator of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 03:32 PM

You are wrong on all counts, CarolC (as usual).

Saddam Hussein started the Iraq-Iran war. He chose to attack Iran (in 1980) because he thought it would be a walk-over. He was wrong.

At the start of the Iraq-Iran was Saddam's weapons were almost all Soviet-made and Soviet-supplied. The Soviet Union did not support the war and slowed the sales, resulting in Iraq buying arms from dozens of countries including Columbia and Israel. Much of those arms may have been US-made but, for the most part, they we supplied by foreign countries and rogue arms dealers.

Saddam made another great mistake by invading Kuwait (in 1990) when he felt that the US no longer had the courage to fight. He was wrong again.

To end the Gulf War (actually phase I of it) Saddam agreed to desrtoy Iraq's chemical and biological stash (well-documented by British Intelligence reports) and behave like a good member of the World community. His own agreement authorized drastic consequences if he did not comply. He did not, mandating the Gulf war to continue (actually to phase III): the ouster of Saddam Hussein and his tyranical government.

Iraq is now lead by people who need and deserves our help. Let us all support them and help them to thrive.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 May 06 - 03:41 PM

"More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces"

BRAVO!

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 04:07 PM

If they ever woke up to the true realities of the situation, they would all desert. Or else they'd launch an armed revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Heddwyn
Date: 28 May 06 - 04:17 PM

Reply to pdq
Its true that the USSR was an important supplier of weapons and military equipment to Saddam's Iraq during the first Gulf War in which a million Iraqis and Iranians were killed or wounded.
It is equally true that the USA and the UK were important funders,supporters and suppliers of military hardware to Saddam.

Thatcher's govt gave him a billion pounds [yes one billion pounds ] of war credits so that he could buy British arms,weapons and military equipment.He got the weapons but defaulted on the bill which meant that the UK taxpayer funded those weapons directly as the bills were guranteed by the govt.

The USA supported Saddam with weapons,equipment,machine tools ,military intelligence and massive sums of money.The USA even shot down a civil Iranian passenger plane in the closing stages of the war killing all on board. The USA protected Iraqi shipping during the tanker war in 1889 and generally tilted its political and military might in favour of Saddam.
pdq ...dont you know it was the CIA and the USA which helped Saddam's Baathists take power ......THE usa should stop its slaughtering of innocents in the Middle East ...but it wont because of the oil at stake.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:17 PM

No, you are wrong, pdq. As always. See the content of the link I provided.

Saddam Hussein started the Iraq-Iran war.

He did so as our proxy. Saddam was a product of US meddling in Iraq. Everything he did, he did on behalf of the US. He would never even have become the president of Iraq had not the US installed the Baath party in power in Iraq, and had they not nurtured his rise to power. Saddam may have been a bad guy, but he was our bad guy and he what he did, he did at our bidding, and in service to our agenda.

BTW, the agenda of the US is exactly the same as Hitler's agenda, namely, supremacy and world domination (and money).

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:30 PM

...and even Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was doing with the blessing of the US government. He asked the US government for permission prior to invading Kuwait, and he had been told by April Gilaspie that the US would not interfere if he invaded Kuwait. Had the US sent Saddam a different signal (ie: No, don't invade Kuwait. We don't want you to do that), the first Gulf war would probably not have happened.

Of course, not having the first (and subsequent) Gulf war(s) wouldn't have served the agenda of the US govt, since what the US wanted was a pretext for invading Iraq, so the US could build as many military bases in that country as it wanted, and use Iraq as a staging ground for future wars in that region. Because none of the Gulf wars have ever been about what is good for the Iraqis, OR what is good for the people of the US. They have been entirely about supremcy and global domination (and oil and money).

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:30 PM

Here is a quote about the Iraq-Iran War:


"Many observers...believe that Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Iran was a personal miscalculation based on ambition and a sense of vulnerability. Saddam Hussein...feared that Iran's new revolutionary leadership would threaten Iraq's delicate Sunni-Shia balance and would exploit Iraq's geostrategic vulnerabilities--Iraq's minimal access to the Persian Gulf, for example.

The Iran-Iraq War was multifaceted and included religious schisms, border disputes, and political differences. Conflicts contributing to the outbreak of hostilities ranged from centuries old Sunni-versus-Shia and Arab-versus-Persian religious and ethnic disputes, to a personal animosity between Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini. Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Phebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that 'the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein', and 'the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's'. "


No, the US did not make Saddam a thug, he was born one. No, the US did not put him in power, he murdered his way to the top of the Baath Party and rigged the election. No, the US did not support his war on Iran, but we did help Iraq fight to a stalemate when Iran became the aggressors and appeared ready to defeat Saddam and absorb most of Iraq's land and oil, as well as the people (70% are Shiite) into the Islamic Theocracy called Iran.

[thanks for signing as "Ifor"...you are obviously both "Mousey McConville" and "Heddwyn" and others. Your previous posts are the of an extreme Leftist and a rabid anti-American]

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:30 PM

and as previously stated..
Meanwhile, back in 1974, an Iraqi delegation "led by Dr Mohammed Al Shukri of the Iraqi Ministry of Industry, but operating under the cover of representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, visited Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, a specialist in chemical plant manufacture."

Saddam Hussein, The Politics of Revenge, Said K Aburish p 137

the chapter goes on to describe the tooing and froing between Iraq and the US that led to the US passing on to the Iraqi government blueprints for their first chemical weapons plant. The author cites letters, and documents which involved both the US government and MI5.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:37 PM

Why do you never provide attribution for your quotes, pdq?

Saddam's personal motivations for his involvement in the Iran/Iraq war are irrelevant. The fact that his own motives coincided with the motives of the US government (up to a point), is the reason he received so much help from the US government in carrying them out. Had the US not seen Saddam as a useful tool for carrying out its own agenda, Saddam would never even held his position of power in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:39 PM

as well, US soldiers are also deserting in droves..

Soldiers flee to Canada to avoid Iraq duty

Duncan Campbell
Tuesday March 28, 2006
The Guardian


Hundreds of deserters from the US armed forces have crossed into Canada and are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of war in Iraq by the US entitle them to asylum. A decision on a test case involving two US servicemen is due shortly and is being watched with interest by fellow servicemen on both sides of the border. At least 20 others have already applied for asylum and there are an estimated 400 in Canada out of more than 9,000 who have deserted since the conflict started in 2003. Ryan Johnson, 22, from near Fresno in California, was due to be deployed with his unit to Iraq in January last year but crossed the Canadian border in June and is seeking asylum. "I had spoken to many soldiers who had been in Iraq and who told me about innocent civilians being killed and about bombing civilian neighbourhoods," he told the Guardian.

"It's been really great since I've been here. Generally, people have been really hospitable and understanding, although there have been a few who have been for the war." He is now unable to return to the US. "I don't have a problem with that. I'm in Canada and that's that." Mr Johnson said it was unclear exactly how many US soldiers were in Canada but he thought 400 was a "realistic figure". He had been on speaking tours across the country as part of a war resisters' movement and had come across other servicemen living underground.

Jeffry House, a Toronto lawyer who represents many of the men, said that an increasing number were seeking asylum. "There are a fair number without status and a fair number on student visas," he said, and under UN guidelines on refugee status they were entitled to seek asylum.

All deserters, past and present, are placed on an FBI wanted list. Earlier this month, Allen Abney, 56, who deserted from the US marines 38 years ago during the Vietnam war, was arrested as he crossed into the US, a journey he had taken many times before without problem. He was held in a military jail in California for a few days, then discharged. "They have resuscitated long-dormant warrants," said Mr House. "I know 15 people personally who have crossed 10 or more times without problems and then all of a sudden they are arresting people. It seems like it would be connected to Iraq."

Lee Zaslofsky, 61, the coordinator of the War Resisters' Support Campaign in Toronto, said that he was impressed by the young men who were seeking asylum. "Some have been to Iraq and others have heard what goes on there," he said. "Mainly, what they discuss is being asked to do things they consider repugnant. Most are quite patriotic ... Many say they feel tricked by the military."

During the Vietnam war between 50,000 and 60,000 Americans crossed the border to avoid serving.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:39 PM

"Anti-Americanism"? Hardly. Rabid anti-fascism, pdq, is never appreciated by people who are unwittingly supporting a fascist regime, which is what you are doing. CarolC IS an American.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:45 PM

..and its incidents like this that are causing soldiers to desert.

Photos Indicate Civilians Slain Execution-Style;by Tony Perry and Julian E. Barnes

WASHINGTON — Photographs taken by a Marine intelligence team have convinced investigators that a Marine unit killed as many as 24 unarmed Iraqis, some of them "execution-style," in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha after a roadside bomb killed an American in November, officials close to the investigation said Friday. The pictures are said to show wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children. Some were shot in the head and some in the back, congressional and defense officials said.

One government official said the pictures showed that infantry Marines from Camp Pendleton "suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic results." The case may be the most serious incident of alleged war crimes in Iraq by U.S. troops. Marine officers have long been worried that Iraq's deadly insurgency could prompt such a reaction by combat teams.

Published on Saturday, May 27, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:47 PM

The majority of Canadians were not in sympathy with American empire-building in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, and we took in many American deserters. The same is true now regarding our opinion of American empire-building in the Middle East. I doubt you can find one non-American population in the world today so deluded as to favour the present American policy in the Middle East, with the possible exception of the Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:48 PM

Get yer eyes checked, Little Hawk, the postscript says "[thanks for signing as "Ifor"...you are obviously both "Mousey McConville" and "Heddwyn" and others. Your previous posts are the of an extreme Leftist and a rabid anti-American] "

CaroC is an entirely different issue.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Peace
Date: 28 May 06 - 05:52 PM

"CALGARY — Capt. Nichola Goddard, Canada's first female combat soldier to be killed in battle, will be buried at the National Memorial Cemetery in Ottawa, an honour which will draw attention to the little-known site."

Captain Goddard was stationed in Afghanistan. She is Canada's first (and I pray last) woman soldier to be killed in battle. IMO, let the rich bastards fight their own wars.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:02 PM

Huh? Who are you accusing of posting under those psuedonyms, pdq? If it's me, sorry...you are entirely mistaken. I don't post under psuedonyms on political threads. I have no need to.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:05 PM

Anyway, anti-Americanism is as common nowadays as anti-Naziism was in the 40's or anti-Romanism was in 55 AD.

And for basically the very same reasons.

You say it like it was a bad thing... ;-P

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:09 PM

LH...read 4:17 post and see how it is signed. Then check other posts by "Ifor". He/she is only here to promote extreme Leftist trash.

You and I can have disagreements but let's not have misunderstandings.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:09 PM

why do soldiers desert? and why are they applying for refugee status in countires like Canada, rather than fight in a war?

The UNHCR Handbook on Procedures & Criteria for Determining Refugee Status comments that while army desertion is not generally grounds for asylum, there are some who have valid claims. These include:

(from para 170).. there are cases where the necessity to perform military service may be the sole ground for a claim to refugee status, i.e. when a person can show that the performance of military service would have required his participation in military action contrary to his genuine political, religious or moral convictions, or to valid reasons of conscience.

171. Not every conviction, genuine though it may be, will constitute a sufficient reason for claiming refugee status after desertion or draft-evasion. It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement with his government regarding the political justification for a particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.

172. Refusal to perform military service may also be based on religious convictions. If an applicant is able to show that his religious convictions are genuine, and that such convictions are
not taken into account by the authorities of his country in requiring him to perform military service, he may be able to establish a claim to refugee status. Such a claim would, of course, be supported by any additional indications that the applicant or his family may have encountered difficulties due to their religious convictions. ..

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Roughyed
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:52 PM

I was involved in Manchester Trades Council (UK), a local trade union organisation during the 1980s and we had a delegate who was involved in CARDRI ( Committee Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq) and we duly passed resolutions, wrote to MPs, demonstrated etc, against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. We got nowhere because our government and the US government were quite happy with their friend Saddam. Iraqi officers were trained in Britain.

All of a sudden we are told that he was as bad as Hitler whereas we thought he was a fairly typical American puppet dictator. Saddam's main crime seems to have been going beyond the orders from his American masters. They were quite happy for him to torture and murder while he was acting in their interests but once he crossed them he had to be taught a lesson to keep the others in line - just like Americas former friends Noriega and Milosevic.

In UK terms though, we were told by Blair that the war was not about regime change. Indeed days before the invasion Blair was telling Parliament that if Saddam got rid of his (non-existent) WMD Blair was willing to let him stay in power - murdering and torturing at will presumably. The next day he was lambasting the anti war movement for 'allowing a dictator to stay in power'. In my experience the pro war voices in this country have mainly relied on abuse, shifting arguments and distortions of the truth. The result is a complete mess that the poor Iraqi people have to endure.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: dianavan
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:55 PM

"No, the US did not support his war on Iran, but we did help Iraq fight to a stalemate when Iran became the aggressors and appeared ready to defeat Saddam and absorb most of Iraq's land and oil, as well as the people (70% are Shiite) into the Islamic Theocracy called Iran."

Hmmm....

So you think the U.S. was justified in backing Saddam so that the Iranian theocracy would not gain control the land or the majority of the population who were Shiite?

...and now, with Saddam gone and thousands dead and injured, the Shiite majority rule Iraq. I'd say that was a hop, jump and a skip away from Iranian rule.

So what have we accomplished? Nothing. The plan has back-fired.

If the cause of this war was to secure our supply of oil, then say it. Don't try to tell us that the U.S. wanted to oust Saddam because he was a bad man. The U.S. doesn't care if rulers are good or bad. They just want people in power who will co-operate.

Presently they have made enemies with both the Shiite and the Sunni. The only friends they have are Kurds and because of Turkey, thats not likely to be long lasting either.

Lets face it, the U.S. is out its league. The U.S. has hung itself with its own rope. They forgot the first rule of war: Know your enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 07:15 PM

Yeah, pdq, I read the 4:17 post, and I agree with it, but I have no idea who wrote it.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: The Walrus
Date: 29 May 06 - 08:08 AM

To return to the original theme of the thread, I have no respect for the deserters.
If they wanted to avoid service in Iraq they could have made the point with eleven words - in time honoured formula, to throw down their arms and declare "Do with me what you will, I will soldier no more." - Of course, that might mean having to face up to pcourt marshal and punishment rather than running away.

W

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 29 May 06 - 09:03 AM

To PDQ
Opposition to the war in Britain is not anti American...not in the least.
There is a wide anti war movement in America...for example some 300 000 marched in New York last month to protest at the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq.
Notable Americans including Noam Chomsky,the late Edward Said and Howard Zinn have spoken out against the warhawks.
US veterans against the war are organising to tell the world about what they have seen.Indeed some of these veterans marched to New Orleans last month to make the link between the criminality of the war and the criminality of what has been done to the poor of New Orleans.
Get a grip pdq ...millions across the world marched to try to stop the war before the horror of Shock and Awe was unleashed by the war gang in the White House. Bush and his grisly crew of reactionary oil men ,recycled Reaganites and chickenhawks and backed by his poodle Blair, were determined to get their war and the resulting mayhem, murder and madness is plain for all to see.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 29 May 06 - 09:24 AM

I don't know about the US but ALL British soldiers are VOLUNTEERS, they didn't enlist on the proviso that wouldn't have to do the job they enlisted to do. ALL soldiers are trained to kill, if they didn't understand this they should never have enlisted.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 06 - 09:31 AM

ifor, 300,000 is one one thousandth of the current population.
There have been more for a 4th of July celebration there and many more for a free open air concert in New York City.

Is it because our priorities are misplaced or the opposition is not to the degree you try to make it out to be?

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 06 - 09:32 AM

We have glorified war and soldiering for so long that the reality going in does not mask the reality of being there. Maybe many of the guys who left (AWOL) just didn't want to fight for a lie anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 29 May 06 - 09:59 AM

ifor - My gripe is that you started this thread under one name and posted to it under two other names.

BTW, if 2.65% of British soldiers desert, there must have been nearly 40,000 there to have 1000 deserters. I doubt that is true.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 May 06 - 10:14 AM

pdq, aren't there at least 40,000 soldiers in the British army? I doubt if many of these voluntary separations actually happened in-theater.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 29 May 06 - 10:35 AM

artbrooks - good point, but publicizing the deserters this way is an act of propaganda (again, not meaning by you) by the origional poster.

BTW, I support our police actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You support only the latter which, in many ways, is more of a 'cowboy' action than Iraq, where we clearly had a UN mandate as well as Saddam Hussein's 'terms of surrender" to support us.