Soldiers: Seek Asylum in Ireland

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
US soldiers who have layovers in Ireland (enroute to Iraq) and who oppose serving there are being encouraged to seek asylem.

A decade ago, even five years ago, I would have said fry those deserters! Things sure have changed since 2001. With the administration's thoroughly illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq and the nightmare it has unleashed, I can't blame soldiers/Marines who've already served a tour over there and decide they can't stomach another tour. The brutality they've been forced to be a part of is insane.

I applaud Ireland for giving those people reguge.


What do you think?



February 8, 2005

"Don't Get Back on that Plane"
Soldiers: Seek Asylum in Ireland
By HARRY BROWNE

The chain of violence and corruption that connects the United States with Iraq includes an airport in the west of Ireland. For more than two years, as reported previously in Counterpunch, the Irish peace movement has been trying to break the chain. Having failed, so far, to do that, campaigners now hope to turn Shannon Airport into the weakest link.

A group of activists, including several of the 'Pitstop Ploughshares' who face trial next month for their 'disarmament' of a US Navy plane in 2003, have called for American military war resisters to seek official refuge while their planes refuel and they are let wander through the lounges of this relatively small civilian airport
www.counterpunch.org...




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I hate to split hairs, but it depends.
When you join the USMC you become a killer. That might sound vicious, but that's the god's truth, straight from the mouth of my Senior Drill Instructor. You volunteer, you are trained, and you are paid- all to kill people when ordered to do so. We probably shouldn't need an organization like that, and most people probably shouldn't ever belong to an organization like that, but we do have it, we sometimes need it, and once somebody joins they need to render their service.

On the other hand, there are people who have basically had their contracts altered by the government as a result of this war. Troops who have been the victims of stop-loss orders or who have been recalled from Inactive Reserve (these are people who are being kept beyond the normal 4 years) are having an emergency provision of their enlistment contracts exploited because it is politically expedient. I believe the government is breaching that contract and that those individuals have a right to avoid being exploited if they can.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the enlistment contract that says you will only fight good wars. A serviceman fights for his fellow citizens, whatever the cause. When politicians get them into a jam like Iraq, they depend on citizens like us to get them out. If we don't get them out, then their sad duty is to fight for we who do not fight for them. I know that sounds like it really sucks, but it's an effective system for maintaining the professionalism and reliablility of the armed forces. What we need now is a system to maintain the professionalism and reliability of civilians, because if this deployment is so wrong we ought to be getting our troops out of there at all costs.

So I'll finish up by hammeing in a point I've made before- Bush isn't invading Iraq- AMERICA is. Everyone who fails to stop the war, especially those who want to but do not act, is effectively responsible for promoting the war. If you don't want the troops in Iraq, stop sending them there. Right you congressman, do something. Promoting a handful of dessertions isn't going to bring down the death toll, it's just going to pass the burden on to the men who had the integrity to play the cards they were dealt.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I served in the Army Airborne. Being paid to kill is not unique to the Marine Corps. I'm just glad that when I served (late '80's-early '90's) I was young and hawkish on defense. I totally supported Reagan and Bush. It made my life as a soldier quite easy. When we got the call to ship out to Saudi (after Iraq invaded Kuwait) we were stoked as hell. I believed in our mission 1000% We all did.

A lot of time has passed and I've learned a great deal more. I'm very glad I served and I would never change that. But I'm also glad I saw the writing on the wall and got out.

I will not go kill people and destroy their property because some knob in Washington or Houston sees some oil he wants and is too pu$$y to go fight for it himself.


I truly feel for our troops out there who know how wrong this whole thing is and don't want to take part anymore. I do not blame them. I'm just thankful, for their sakes, that there's somewhere they can turn. Seeking asylum would be a helluva lot better and wiser than watching your friends get blown to hell and having to kill people (some of who are innocent). A lot our soldiers are going to be insane for life after what they've gone through. I'm sure their families would rather them be alive and well in Canada or Ireland than out on the streets & out of their minds, addicted to drugs, or worse, dead.

The invasion/occupation of Iraq is/was WRONG. The administration lied. Our soldiers are hanging in the wind. When the dust settles, as with Vietnam, history will show how utterly f**ked up and wrong this whole situation was. Those war heroes who couldn't do another tour and deserted will be given amnesty. Some day.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I will not go kill people and destroy their property because some knob in Washington or Houston sees some oil he wants and is too pu$$y to go fight for it himself.


I truly feel for our troops out there who know how wrong this whole thing is and don't want to take part anymore. I do not blame them.

The invasion/occupation of Iraq is/was WRONG. The administration lied. Our soldiers are hanging in the wind. When the dust settles, as with Vietnam, history will show how utterly f**ked up and wrong this whole situation was. Those war heroes who couldn't do another tour and deserted will be given amnesty. Some day.


I'm not going to disagree with that in the least my friend, and let me add that I meant no insult to the Army by leaning on my own experience as a Marine.
The problem with individual desertions is precisely that this war ought not be fought. Desertion doesn't solve that problem- it only passes the horrible price on to one of your fellow servicemen. If there's anything that ought to be important to we who know what it is to rely on the man beside us, it is unity. We'd never call it every man for himself if the enemy were posing a grave threat to us, so why do we call it every many for himself when our government does this?
This problem must be stopped at the root. If the war should not be fought than it must be kept from being fought. Not by individuals saying no, but by units, from your platoon right up to the entire division and the army itself saying No, we're not gonna fight for this. If that can't be made to happen then the people had dang well better step in on behalf of the troops and turn this government around.
At the end of the day, it's true that ours is not to wonder why. We fight for our force and for our people. If our force and our people send us, we as individual troops have a sad obligation to either do what is asked of us, or to renounce our citizenship, accept no pardons, and declare ourselves enemies of what we see to be evil.

As I've said, the sole exception I see is for those who have been the victims of stoploss or have been called from inactive reserve. Their contracts are being corrupted and they have an individual right to say that they've already served and to take whatever way out they have.

In so many words- don't oppose the war, stop the war.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
what do you say to the hundreds of thousands of protestors who lined the streets of america in dissent leading to and following the war?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sturod84
what do you say to the hundreds of thousands of protestors who lined the streets of america in dissent leading to and following the war?


I've got a few things to say to them.
1. Where are your friends? Did you marshall every scrap of force you could?
2. Why are your congressmen still in office? If there are so dang many of us against this war how could any congressman have voted for that war and kept his seat?
3. What good are you doing "lining the streets"? Why aren't you barring the enterance to your congressman's office? Why didn't you go block the raliroad tracks when military hardware was being moved to ports? Why don't you help troops who don't approve of the war organize unit-wide disobedience to deployment orders?
4. Did you vote, did you vote for all offices, and for whom did you vote?

The fact of the matter is that dissent to this war has been little more than occasion for a social gathering. If there was any power behind it they'd have either won election (and if you say it was rigged then why didn't you do what the Ukrainians did?). If there was any power behind them there would be wide-spread civil disobedience.
Bottom line, there is a difference between being opposed to the war and opposing the war. America collectively made a choice to invade Iraq because America collectively chose not to sufficiently oppose the war.
If you're against it, stop it. I for one was in favor of it at the time that we went in, and I supported it by joining the Marine Corps. I've got the lower back injury to prove it. At this point I feel that I should have opposed the war however I do not believe that it would be wise to cut and run before getting this new government firmly entrenched, therefore I am still not opposed to the war. If I were, I'd be harrassing my friends, my family, and my congressman to know end. It doesn't even take that long to write a letter to your congressman and to tell others to do the same you know, and it only takes one free day, which I'm sure everyone can spare, to go out and stir up a bit of a tempest in opposition to something if you've got cause.

Edit to add #4

[edit on 10-2-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm not going to disagree with that in the least my friend, and let me add that I meant no insult to the Army by leaning on my own experience as a Marine.


No insult taken.



The problem with individual desertions is precisely that this war ought not be fought. Desertion doesn't solve that problem- it only passes the horrible price on to one of your fellow servicemen.


I think it is encumbent upon those of us who have already served to speak up for those soldiers/Marines who cannot. In whatever forums we can. Trust me when I say, I do not take desertion lightly. It breaks everything down. The disgrace falls on the entire service and those who lead it. This war should never have been started and unfortunately, those who wear the uniform do not have any say in where they go. To desert is the most extreme of actions. That should speak to the depth of depravity surrounding this whole illegal action.


If there's anything that ought to be important to we who know what it is to rely on the man beside us, it is unity.


It's hard for me, just as I oppose this whole thing, to not go back in. I can't help but think about how my experience might help new recruits in Iraq and Afghanistan. So many are terrified heading into the show, they need a steady influence. It was the same way back when we went. My heart is with them; but my life and work is here now. I shared these feelings with a few good friends/co-workers and my mom. They all yelled at me for even suggesting I go back. It's difficult to deal with when you're split like that.


This problem must be stopped at the root. If the war should not be fought than it must be kept from being fought. Not by individuals saying no, but by units, from your platoon right up to the entire division and the army itself saying No, we're not gonna fight for this.


We actually saw that awhile back. Remember the unit out of Rock Hill, SC who refused to go out and run fuel? It was too dangerous and the fuel was bad. The Army was gonna burn 'em till the media got a hold of it. That stopped Uncle Sam his tracks.


If that can't be made to happen then the people had dang well better step in on behalf of the troops and turn this government around.


It's gonna take that en masse. And we the people are gonna have to be loud about it. This administration doesn't give a rat's A double S what we think. Remember the massive protests b4 the war? It was unprecedented.


As I've said, the sole exception I see is for those who have been the victims of stoploss or have been called from inactive reserve.


The way Rummy's Pentagon is treating our military, in this regard, is obscene. It's the only way they can deal without having to come out and say we need to start a draft. Isn't that sweet? The very people who are giving their all - plus - are the ones getting screwed the worst.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I think it is encumbent upon those of us who have already served to speak up for those soldiers/Marines who cannot...

Trust me when I say, I do not take desertion lightly. It breaks everything down. The disgrace falls on the entire service and those who lead it...

Agreed completely. You have pointed out correctly that desertions highlight just how dispicable certain aspects of this war are. That consideration is exactly why I would support the otherwise unthinkable idea of units commiting mutiny. As long as it stop a wrong from being committed, I see the value in it.



It's hard for me, just as I oppose this whole thing, to not go back in. I can't help but think about how my experience might help new recruits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think I know how you feel. I ended up out because I was injured, but from time to time I get the idea that hey, if I took a butt-load of pain killers maybe I could pull my weight. Of course I'm cured of that illusion every time I try to excercise with more than my bodyweight.



We actually saw that awhile back. Remember the unit out of Rock Hill, SC who refused to go out and run fuel? It was too dangerous and the fuel was bad. The Army was gonna burn 'em till the media got a hold of it. That stopped Uncle Sam his tracks.

I can't even being to imagine what the hell the Army was thinking with that mission. It's embarrassing how many times the pentagon has been caught under-supporting our troops, and everytime it happens I remember that Rumsfeld originally thought 50,000 troops were enough. I keep thinking "get in or get out"... now gee, why does that sound so dang familiar?
We need to train those Iraqi troops at a cyclic rate and get the hell out ASAP so they can sink or swim on their own sooner rather than later. The resistance never stops- Vietnam should have taught us that- so we need to take the fastest road to the final chapter so that we can pull out and let the friendly government control its own destiny for better or worse. Then we can get on to the aftermath part where America gets rightfully gun-shy about war.



It's gonna take that en masse. And we the people are gonna have to be loud about it. This administration doesn't give a rat's A double S what we think. Remember the massive protests b4 the war? It was unprecedented.

Protests are one thing, disobedience is another. If it comes down to the government versus the vast indisputable majority of Americans then it might take a hollow-point impeachment, but disobedience, civil or otherwise is what its going to take, because you're dead right about the protests being ignored.
LET ME STRESS that I do not condone violence in any case except if a government should be unquestionably operating outside the bounds of the Constitution and showing no signs of submission to the peaceful will of the people. So please, no warnings and no trips to Camp X-Ray for me.



The way Rummy's Pentagon is treating our military, in this regard, is obscene. It's the only way they can deal without having to come out and say we need to start a draft. Isn't that sweet? The very people who are giving their all - plus - are the ones getting screwed the worst.

That's exactly my opinion of the stoploss policy. What they are doing is wrongfully exploiting emergency provisions of the enlistment contract not because of an emergency but because the war could not be carried out within the confines of the constitution otherwise (because it would require a draft and the consideration of a possible draft would preclude any chance of war being declared). Rummy is circumventing the congress, no two ways about it.
I believe it was Heinlin, writer of Starship Troopers, which was once on the reading list for enlisted Marines, who said "If a government's own citizens won't volunteer to fight for it, let the thing die". I couldn't say it any better. If a war can't be fought with volunteers then it can't be fought by a democracy.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Thank you for your service in the Marines. Don't feel bad for being hurt. That is beyond your control. Who knows, maybe there is something far greater out here that you are needed for. You are very articulate and have experience some will never know. That is very important in this debate. Your words carry greater weight among our citizenry than you know.

I wrote this op/ed in February, just before the invasion, opposing the war and enumerating the reasons. The response I got was huge. I was as proud of that, being one of the few people in the mainstream media at the time to oppose it, as I was proud of serving during Desert Storm. It's the same fight, only with the pen. Unfortunately, my protestations fell on deaf ears in Washington and the pandora's box (I predicted) was opened and unleashed. And to this day, to my complete consternation, not one single person in this administration has been held accountable. The Vagabond mentioned how Wolfowitz of Arabia claimed we could invade and occupy with a mere 48,000 troops (congressional testimony). He (in his words) couldn't have been more wildly off the mark! In order to do it right, we should have had at least 500,000 troops on the ground. (Remember, during the Gulf War we had 750,000.) That's what you get when schemers who have never served in the military - let alone - gone to war - get into the bizness of warmaking. They don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground and people get killed unecessarily. It's abominable.


Vagabond.. I agree with you that we cannot just cut and run, as they say. There are, however, measures we could take that would rectify some of the glaring problems which have kept our troops in harm's way. The first one being - move our troops out of the populated areas and into desert camps. It would be ideal for training Iraqi forces and we'd be (hopefully) out of sight, out of mind. If they needed our help, we'd be a mere chopper flight away.

This is one simple solution to one problem. If the architects of this disaster were man enuff to listen to those who actually have experience in that region and in assymetrical warfare, things would improve markedly. It infuriates me that they choose not to listen.. as our brave men and women fight their way through unecessarily dangerous tours.

After Desert Storm, we all believed that we had learned the lessons and excised the demons from Vietnam. We were damn proud of that. To think that we have not, that America suffers from such obscene amnesia, makes my blood boil.

Thanks Vagabond, for the excellent conversation.





posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
we should have had at least 500,000 troops on the ground. (Remember, during the Gulf War we had 750,000.) That's what you get when schemers who have never served in the military - let alone - gone to war - get into the bizness of warmaking.


The horribly ironic thing is that this isn't just a matter of White House ignorance in military affairs. The very men who insist on fighting this war so badly are the ones who intervened against the original plan for Desert Storm, which probably would have been, in the Commandant's words, "Another Tarawa". Dick Cheney and Colin Powell kept this from happening in 1991, but under this administration the neo-con camp didn't care, and I can only assume that General Powell did what he could but found himself speaking to a brick wall. In short- Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are extremely experienced in the DoD and what they have done to our troops is no accident. They have decided this is acceptable. It reminds me of an old M*A*S*H* episode,
"Our losses were insignificant"
"How many kids are there in an insignificant, colonel?"



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
"Our losses were insignificant"
"How many kids are there in an insignificant, colonel?"


For real.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
A True Committed Soldier...


Capt. David Rozelle lost one of his legs in Iraq a little more than a year ago. Now he's ready to be back in action, in charge of 205 troops.

"I want to be their commander, not a one-legged commander," says Rozelle.

He has gone through relentless training for a mission many thought he would never make.

"I looked down and there was just nothing," Rozelle says, recalling the moments after an anti-tank mine tore through his Humvee. He ended up losing his right leg, below the knee.

F ort Carson amputee returning to Iraq for second tour of duty

More can be provided upon request.

Those soldiers that take asylum anywhere outside of the U.S. should be persecuted upon returning to the U.S. or found on any U.S. grounds. They are deserters, deserters to their families, deserters to their brothers in arms, deserters to their country, and deserters to themselves. This coming from a former 8-year vet himself. Bet.






seekerof



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Those soldiers that take asylum anywhere outside of the U.S. should be persecuted upon returning to the U.S. or found on any U.S. grounds. They are deserters, deserters to their families, deserters to their brothers in arms, deserters to their country, and deserters to themselves. This coming from a former 8-year vet himself. Bet.

seekerof


Were this administration not full of traitors, war criminals and cowards, I might agree. However, until justice is served in those lofty places, desertions will only grow. BushCo. has itself to blame. And you know what they say, Sh** rolls down hill..



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Don't you ever get tired of telling the same old lies over and over again, whining about the same old same old over and over again. By your own account, you served your time. Now how about taking a break and thanking God there are still those who will fight in the stead of those with weak knees.

[edit on 05/2/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Don't you ever get tired of telling the same old lies over and over again, whining about the same old same old over and over again. By your own account, you served your time. Now how about taking a break and thanking God there are still those who will fight in the stead of those with weak knees.

[edit on 05/2/21 by GradyPhilpott]


No, I NEVER tire of spreading the truth. Sorry you can't handle it, Grady.

As far as your USING our troops to try and impugn my character, I just have to say, how pathetic.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
EastCoastKid...
Is that "truth" you speak of absolute?
Cause from my standpoint and millions of others and especially among the military, your "truth" is quite subjective.


Don't think so, as your fellow in arms themselves, k? For it is their word that I will objectively take the "truth" from and not you.



Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60 percent remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. And support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

--snip--

In addition, despite the pressures of a wartime military, 87 percent said they’re satisfied with their jobs and, given the choice today, only 25 percent said they would leave the service.

--snip--

Most surprisingly, a year ago 77 percent said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year that number shrank to 66 percent.

--snip--

Among the poll’s other findings:

• 75 percent oppose drafting men into the military.

• 60 percent blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.

• Only 12 percent think civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The support among the military for the Iraq war comes at a time when polls of the civilian population show a steady erosion of such support. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week, for example, 56 percent of Americans said the Iraq war is not worth fighting and 58 percent said they disapproved of the way Bush is handling the war.

We asked what you think. You told us: Troops retain strong support for war




seekerof

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
EastCoastKid...
Is that "truth" you speak of absolute?
Cause from my standpoint and millions of others and especially among the military, your "truth" is quite subjective.



Subjective.. before the invasion of Iraq, I said there were NO weapons of mass destruction. Bush said there were. Rumsfeld said they knew exactly where they were. You and your fellow Neo Con supporters here spread these false assertions as TRUTH. And now? NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

What does that say for your version of TRUTH?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
One thing this all boils down to, why would they run?

If they are too frightned to go back to iraq then doesnt that raise the question of why we are there in the first place?

And doesnt that question raise the question of what led us to take that action?

I can answer the last one , only a few people can answer the others...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
No, I NEVER tire of spreading the truth. Sorry you can't handle it, Grady.

No wonder you haven't tired yet, you haven't started spreading the truth yet.


BT

Back to the topic, does anyone know if anyone has actually taken them up on this yet? I haven't heard anything over the official and unoffical channels.

[edit on 23/2/05 by COOL HAND]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
No, I NEVER tire of spreading the truth. Sorry you can't handle it, Grady.

No wonder you haven't tired yet, you haven't started spreading the truth yet.


We all know you and Seekerof carry water for this administration. And we all know, whether you like it or not, they lied through their teeth to invade Iraq. Push your fallacious nonsense till you're blue in the face. It's your reputation.

I'll try and find out the answer to your question re: takers on the offer.





new topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join