Soldiers: Seek Asylum in Ireland

Here is a site that discusses this issue in detail. There are aritcles, links and figures.

A Different Kind Of 'Route Irish'
Can Shannon Airport be Transformed into a Sanctuary for War Resisters?
In 2004 more than 158,000 US Troops flew through Shannon Airport, most on their way to Iraq. During much of that same period of time approximately 5,500 US Troops have deserted, gone into hiding, sent to jail and some have escaped to Canada.

I agree with what this former Irish Commandant sez:

Ed Horgan, former Irish Army Commandant and anti-war activist explained, ''As a former soldier I am very slow to recommend that any soldier should desert his army or his country. But this is an exceptional case, the war in Iraq is unlawful and it is immoral.''

I guess it would help if I supplied the link, eh?

www.indymedia.ie...

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Go figure.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Go figure.

What question?

I have a question for you Cool Hand. Do you treat people (in the real world) the way you treat them at ATS?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Go figure.

I like your signature Cool Hand ... I retired from the Navy a number of years ago and your signature caught my eye.

"No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned. A man in a jail has more room, better food and commonly better company."

USS Stark (FFG-31) - Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigate - May 17, 1989, Iraqi Mirage F-1 fired two Exocet missiles from a distance of about 10 miles. The missiles struck the port side and destroyed a crew compartment, killing 37 and injuring 21.

EKC posted - "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."

You never miss a chance to get your jabs in - that's to be expected. If you want to get technical about it - attacking an American war ship in international waters is an ACT of WAR. Well well, Iraq declared war on us back in 1989.

This war was Saddam's payback for 37 shipmates DEAD.

"Those war heroes who couldn't do another tour and deserted will be given amnesty. Some day."

Are you calling deserters - HERO'S????? I spent 26 years in the military and if you are calling deserters "heros" then I have no respect for you. Why don't you re-locate to a more friendly country like Canada. I can put up with most left wing people but not to someone calling deserters hero's. I take that very personal. I'll wait for a reply before I permanently ignore you.

Chief

It's amazing how perspectives change with age and experience. Take me, for example. Back when I was in the Army (over a decade ago) I couldn't imagine any plausible reason for a soldier to cry consciencious objector when activated for combat. 'Course, things are a lot different now. Back then, real leaders and real warriors were in charge. The tradgedies and failures of Vietnam were fresh in their minds. They were not going to allow the same insanity to guide us. When it came down to using force, they did it right. We had clear objectives, the equipment supplies and manpower we needed accomplish our missions and realistic EXIT STRATEGIES. Our leadership, for the most part, was outstanding.

How things have changed.

Flip everything I said and you have today's situation. Add to that, a cadre of ruthless, lying civilian suits from defense to the White House who do not have a clue about what constitutes executing a war. Before judging those who cannot go back to the nightmare that is Iraq, consider what they have already gone through. And exercise some compassion. Most will hopefully never know the hellishness that war truly is. If they did know, our soldiers and Marines wouldn't be hanging in the Iraqi wind right now.

"One man has stopped killing"
Sgt. Kevin Bendermen is an American Conscientious Objector

By Mickey Z.
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

"What is wrong with a country where war is glorified and fighting for peace is cowardly?"—Monica Benderman

February 22, 2005—When I saw the recent news report about the U.S. military moving toward the use of robot soldiers, I could not resist the obvious retort: Wasn't that already the case? No less an authority on mass murder than Henry Kissinger once remarked: "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." To buy into this mentality, however, is to write off any possibility of solidarity with American military personnel . . . like, for example, Sgt. Kevin Benderman.

Benderman, a decorated Iraq war veteran with 10 years service in the US Army, is stationed at Ft. Stewart, Ga., with the 3rd Infantry Division. He initially joined the military in 1987 when he was 22.

"His family has a long history of military service, dating back to the revolutionary war," Benderman's wife, Monica told me. "Kevin felt a responsibility to serve because of this heritage. He left the military in 1991 and ran his own sub-contracting/flooring business for 8 years. In 2000, after continuing conversations with his father, who was a WWII veteran, he felt that he had not fulfilled his obligation to service, and re-enlisted." He served one combat tour in Iraq, from March 2003 until September 2003 . . . as part of the 1-10 Calvary 4th Infantry Division from Ft. Hood, Texas.
www.onlinejournal.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What question?

Has anyone actually taken them up on the offer?

I have a question for you Cool Hand. Do you treat people (in the real world) the way you treat them at ATS?

When they are idiots, yes.

Originally posted by w555hc
Well well, Iraq declared war on us back in 1989.

Uh.. yeah? We went over there and crushed his military and stomped out any ability he had to develop or further develop the WMD he had - at the time. Then we placed sanctions on Iraq that inadvertently killed many, many innocent people in the process. Saddam was never a threat to us after the Gulf War.

I guess some folks never get enuff vengeance, though.

Are you calling deserters - HERO'S?????

Anyone who stands up to the Bush machine, on principle, for the sake of truth and justice, is heroic.

If this administration were not so corrupt, this would not be occurring. They have caused our men and women in uniform to break the Geneva conventions. If it wasn't so, I would never have reconsidered my position on it. They and their mindless followers will be held accountable one day. You can be sure of that.

I spent 26 years in the military and if you are calling deserters "heros" then I have no respect for you. Why don't you re-locate to a more friendly country like Canada. I can put up with most left wing people but not to someone calling deserters hero's. I take that very personal. I'll wait for a reply before I permanently ignore you.

Classic example of today's Neo Con intolerance: If you don't think the exact same way I do, you need to leave this country! It's ridiculous and its intellectual cowardice.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Has anyone actually taken them up on the offer?

I gave you a link to explore - if you're truly interested.

I have a question for you Cool Hand. Do you treat people (in the real world) the way you treat them at ATS?

Cool Hand: When they are idiots, yes.

I love it. Cool Hand sits in judgement of others.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Just wondering cool, do you think it was right for us to go in for revenge?
Just a question of intrest.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I gave you a link to explore - if you're truly interested.

I did read it, maybe you can point out the information that I am looking for in the article. All it talks about is a bunch of liberal Irish people who want to make sure that the US soldiers know about their little program. No where does it mention anyone taking advantage of it. Since you posted the article in the first place I had hoped that you might have the information as to whether or not someone took advantage of it.

I love it. Cool Hand sits in judgement of others.

Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black to me.

If I sound a little cautious and legalistic there is a reason for it: once a wrong is committed, most of the options left in the aftermath are tainted by that wrong.
I think that the war is wrong because of the way it has been conducted. I'm not the bleeding heart who thinks we should never hurt anyone; I just think the conduct of the war has raised questions about our government's (and therefore our people's) commitment to the ideals and objectives for which we are supposed to be fighting. As a result, it's wrong to fight the war, but the alternative of desertion is also wrong at least in part, especially when it is conducted in such a way as might call into question the motives of that action.

A deserter hypothetically could be doing for the right reasons, and almost certainly some are, however the fact remains that they are not stopping the war or helping their comrades- they are only saving themselves. I'm not one who thinks they should all rot in prison or be shot, but I also do not believe it can be called heroism unless one does at risk of great personal harm in order to benefit others. If somebody faced consequences for taking some action aimed at stopping the war or reducing the deathtoll, that would be heroic. One who simply gets himself out, even for moral reasons, would not be in my opinion.

Neither camp in this debate is without blood on its hands. As a country we are fighting a war the wrong way- resulting in more casualties both to our troops and Iraqi civilians than are necessary, and failing to adequately accomplish our stated objectives in the process. If you're not working to fix the problem at its root, you're not helping and you're not a hero.

Now I hate to come across as militant but I have to throw this out there because this is a two sided issue. If a soldier really wants to make a difference in the casualty rate of this war, getting out of the war is exactly the wrong thing to do, because somebody else will just take your place. If I were in any condition to be back in the military I would feel that I ought to be clammoring to GO TO Iraq. Chew on that one- what if several thousand troops told the government "You've left our brothers under-strength in Iraq and its causing casualties, and if you wont deploy more of us we'll go on our own."
It's unlikely, maybe even a little stupid, but if somebody REALLY had the lives of their fellow soldiers in mind and wanted to make the biggest difference they possibly could as an individual, they'd accomplish more by pressing for increased forces and doing the job right than they could accomplish by getting themselves out of the fight only to be replaced by somebody else.

I suppose I've said everything- I hope I've made my position clear enough. I'm not ignorantly pro-war, nor would I be anti-war just for the sake of being anti-war if only the war were being fought compitently and in such a way as could accomplish our stated objectives in a fast and efficient manner. I think both the pro and anti-war sides are just a little off the mark, because statements are being made here based on personal values instead of on the merits of the situation.

I'm counting 4 known vets, including myself responding to this topic thread ECK. Isn't it strange that your the only one out of the four who is telling the other three the "truth"?

I'm utterly amazed that you basically told a 26 year vet what you did. Your opinion is your own, just as the "truth" is your own, but to dismiss or disrespect as you have, is a matter that speaks abundantly of your convictions and character.

You produce your own "truths" all the while neglecting those "truths" that are presented by those countering you. Irony or sheer blindness on your part?

Whether the war was just or unjust, your condoning what these deserting soldiers are doing is beyond me, especially coming from a vet as you claim to be. They are entitled to their convictions as you are, but then again, don't expect many, who are or were vets, to take kindly to what you yourself condone and call the "proper thing to do." They betray their country, their families, their fellow comrades, and more importantly, themselves. You or they may not think so now, but years down the road, that decision will haunt them, be assured of that.





seekerof

[edit on 3-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
I'm counting 4 known vets, including myself responding to this topic thread ECK. Isn't it strange that your the only one out of the four who is telling the other three the "truth"?

ECK isn't exactly way off on the fringe by himself. He and I have somewhat similiar outlooks on the situation. I tend to temper my idealistic impulses for the "real world", so I stress sollution oriented acts over individual desertion, but at the core of the issue I think ECK is dead on. The war is being fought quite inappropriately and that raises questions about the morality of the war and the motives of the people running it. Conscience and patriotism are not mutually exclusive.

Whether the war was just or unjust, your condoning what these deserting soldiers are doing is beyond me, especially coming from a vet as you claim to be.

Personally I would stop short of condoning them under the circumstances, but I do understand them and would be completely behind them for whatever action they took which could effectively reduce casualities in Iraq. I realize that there are a lot of people who believe in this war and take a very hardline stance on all matters related to it, but for the life of me I can not understand how anybody believes that we couldn't be doing it better. It is our duty as citizens under the protection of a volunteer military to press the government do conduct the war better for their sake if we aren't already doing absolutely everything in our power to win so that our guys can come back home.

as posted by The Vagabond
The war is being fought quite inappropriately and that raises questions about the morality of the war and the motives of the people running it. Conscience and patriotism are not mutually exclusive.

And you are?
You, like myself, like ECK, etc., are nothing but another member, person, individual with a/an subjective opinion. Matters not to me or anyone else, but you and ECK, if you want to back each other by doing virtual pat-me-on-the-back shows.
Please enlighten me to a time when a war or wars, in general, were not politically motivated or were not "inappropriate" or didn't "raise concerns," k? And don't even mention WWII....

... but I do understand them and would be completely behind them for whatever action they took which could effectively reduce casualities in Iraq.

How political correct of you or would that be: humane?
Always a matter of "reducing" casualties, huh? The Vagabond, they are deserters, period! You may look at as they "reduce" casualties and others may look at it as they are increasing the the chances of casualties by not being there. Ever considered that view or notion?

but for the life of me I can not understand how anybody believes that we couldn't be doing it better.

Coming at you as a vet and soldier myself, have you served in the military? Been in a combat situation, etc.? If not, what you mention is nothing but typical 'armchair general/warrior' rhetoric. Popcorn and a coke, too? Please, "for the life of me," indicate a war that could not be fought or prepared or done better. When you do, I'll listen to your condoning of what ECK is saying and what these men are doing: deserting.

It is our duty as citizens under the protection of a volunteer military to press the government do conduct the war better for their sake if we aren't already doing absolutely everything in our power to win so that our guys can come back home.

Can you run the war any better than it is being done? Can you absolutely and honestly say 'yes'? Think about it, cause hindsight is always 20/20, especially when your on the sidelines viewing it.






seekerof

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
And you are?
You, like myself, like ECK, etc., are nothing but another member, person, individual with a/an subjective opinion.

Is that in response to the sentence where I said "Here is absolute truth and I defy anyone to contradict it."?
Of course my just another person with his own subjective opinion, just like you. I have an opinion on the war and the morality of issues relating to it, and I expressed that opinion without reprimanding anybody else for their opinions and without calling on anybody to endorse my opinion as truth.
For someone so fond of reminding people that we are all mere mortals of imperfect knowledge, you certainly do make a habit of applying your subjective morals to other people, not to mention of trying to imply that you have some sort of special knowledge or authority.

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.

(emphasis mine) Who are you to tell people what they are to themselves? Oh, you're "a former 8-year vet", that's right. Perhaps you would like to claim than in eight brief years you recieved perfect moral understanding which allows you to make such decrees?

Matters not to me or anyone else, but you and ECK, if you want to back each other by doing virtual pat-me-on-the-back shows.

I'm glad it doesn't matter (if it really doesn't matter) that ECK and I are having a "pat-me-on-the-back show" (also known as being in agreement- actually partial agreement in this case). For a minute I was concerned that you might not like it when I got in the way of what looked from my seat like an attempt to somehow invalidate ECK's opinion just because you claim that he's alone in it.

Please enlighten me to a time when a war or wars, in general, were not politically motivated or were not "inappropriate" or didn't "raise concerns," k?

Nice job changing the subject, it was VERY subtle (or maybe you were so busy writing me off without consideration that you just got me mixed up with other "liberals"). I didn't question the war itself. I questioned the way it is being conducted and what that means about the people (not governments) behind it.
In my opinion (as indicated by the phrase "raises questions" as opposed to "proves _____") the conduct of the war and the decisions taken by leaders seem inconsistent with the stated motives and objectives, leading me to suspect (note the personal and subjective phrasing) that the war is not merely politically motivated as you say, but is privately motivated. Companies like Halliburton and Bechtel have made money on this war. In my opinion they are the big winners, more so than the American or Iraqi people. I find it suspicious that important people in the White House just happen to have ties to those companies.

Always a matter of "reducing" casualties, huh? The Vagabond, they are deserters, period! You may look at as they "reduce" casualties and others may look at it as they are increasing the the chances of casualties by not being there. Ever considered that view or notion?

Well gee, if I had thought of it that way maybe I would have said something like

however the fact remains that they are not stopping the war or helping their comrades- they are only saving themselves.

Or perhaps I would say

If somebody faced consequences for taking some action aimed at stopping the war or reducing the deathtoll, that would be heroic. One who simply gets himself out, even for moral reasons, would not be in my opinion.

Would you mind just reading before you offer your rebuttal? You don't have to of course- it's just by personal subjective opinion that you would have a very very hard time giving a relevant response if you didn't know what I had said and in what context I had said it. (and I know you read the part where I said "Personally I would stop short of condoning them under the circumstances", because that was immediately before the sentence you quoted. Perhaps you just found it convenient to forget that I had said that and treat me as if I were an exact clone of ECK (I admit, it would be a great time saver, but it would have little pitfalls to it, like this.)

Coming at you as a vet and soldier myself, have you served in the military? Been in a combat situation, etc.?

USMC, 0311. I joined specifically to be with my many friends in Iraq. I'd probably be there now if I hadn't recieved a back injury at the SOI West. As it is I get news suppliments from four guys I went through SOI with, one of whom came back with a hole in his face that almost killed him. I'm sorry you look down on me for being sympathetic to what my friends have been through, and what by all rights I should have been through. I'm sorry you disagree when I say that I don't condone desertion under these circumstances but that I would condone whatever measures a serviceman might that that would actually do some good.

Please, "for the life of me," indicate a war that could not be fought or prepared or done better.

Drat, I always forget that two wrongs really do make a right. I guess there goes my whole arguement right? Now I'll just have to lower myself to your level by claiming that just as this war is justified past mistakes, that the mistake of desertion is jusified because this war is also a mistake. (Note that I make this claim only in jest- that's not what I've been saying up to this point.)

Can you run the war any better than it is being done? Can you absolutely and honestly say 'yes'? Think about it, cause hindsight is always 20/20, especially when your on the sidelines viewing it.

The answer is an emphatic YES, and let me tell you why. If I made the initial mistake of going in with too few troops, I would have 20/20 hindsight from both Vietnam and the initial setbacks with this war, so that I could then react accordingly. We have not reacted to the trouble this war effort has encountered. The need for what we did in Falujah was apparent long before we acted and in more than just that one city. What's the hold up?
As I said earlier, MORE troops could actually cut down casualities better than fewer, so I would actually be more in support of a soldier who DEMANDED to go to Iraq when not being deployed. In my opinion a straight up draft would be better than what we have going on now (we already have a draft, but we are only drafting people who've already given good service and earned the right to go home). It would be preferable to spend more money and more manhours on this war, and even spend the careers of a few politicians (who would certainly not be reelected after pushing a draft through) than to spend additional lives in Iraq. I believe that politicians are letting honorable men be slaughtered in greater numbers than necessary (and letting them be kept from home longer than necessary, taking an additional toll on families) not to mention putting an unacceptable strain on the future viability of our reserve forces, all because they can't politically afford to really fight this war.
Just as the call went unheeded in Vietnam- GET IN, OR GET OUT! That's how I honestly believe I could fight this war better, because I would sacrifice my job, my popularity, etc in a heartbeat, and have my name spit on forever more, if I could save a couple hundred of my fellow Marines and ensure a viable reserve force to protect America's future.

I just wanted to make a few points about this subject.

Deserting in Ireland may not be a good idea in my opinion. I have heard stories from friends back home of the Garda (Irish police) rounding up American soldiers they find off the confines of the airport. This is mostly due to the illegality of wearing a foreign military uniform on Irish soil. If you intend to desert make sure the uniform is off first!

I vaguely remember a story about some service men changing into civvies in the toilets and trying to make a break from it (failed), but I have been unable to locate that story in the news. I have a friend who does the refueling at Shannon, so it is a "friend" story, thus should be treated with caution. I trust the guy, so at least digest the information and ponder on why it didn't make the news.

Also, while we Irish love the Americans (We want those lovable care-free pre 9-11 Americans back.....We miss you guys!) just remember that Ireland is in America's back pocket.

We are suppossed to be a neutral country, yet we allow the use of our territory as a jump-pad to war. Sure, we are making a few bucks off sandwiches and Jet-fuel, the army boys and the garda are making nice overtime money keeping the only people with a conscience left in Ireland off the airport.

From what I gather, we had two choices.

1. Shut up. Make a few bucks.

2. Get all high and mighty and grow a set. George rings up a few of his buddies in Industry and we have the enormous American investment in our economy cut down or cut off. The kind of body-blow that would cripple us.

Too many people with too much money in Ireland now. How far we have fallen for a few shiny new cars. Keeps the mind off of the blood on our hands I suppose.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Also, while we Irish love the Americans (We want those lovable care-free pre 9-11 Americans back.....We miss you guys!) just remember that Ireland is in America's back pocket.

Amen to that.

What does the majority of Irish citizens think of the war in Iraq?

There are still a few of us loveable pre 9/11 Americans laying around. There are just two problems.
1. We aren't in charge.
2. I wasn't particularly loveable even before 9/11.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What does the majority of Irish citizens think of the war in Iraq?

We had unprecedented protests all over the country the same time as the rest of the world did, before the invasion.

G.W. is often referred to as a "ferocious langer" which isn't a too complimentary term. Up to now any American president could come to Ireland and walk down the street with the minimal of security. People would line the streets and cheer and all he would have to do is be seen drinking a pint of Guinness to garner our love.(!)

When George came to visit we had the largest police and military mobilization since WWII. 'Nuff said. He didn't even make it out into public. People were preparing to throw things.

Anyhow, bottom line. Any deserting soldier would probably have the sympathy of the public, but the system would have you. Interestingly enough, we recently had a streamlining of the refugee deporting system so anybody caught here would be shipped quickly back to their home country (i.e. America in a deserters case).

That and removing the Canadian option have you worried yet? It's getting cold, maybe it's a.....draft?

p.s. Vagabond: I am sure your mother thought you were lovable at least.