What it takes to stop a phony war

by **isachar** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:43 pm

This is encouraging, as it will take three things to stop the Bush admin's phony war and bring down the new Caligula: 1) Resistance by those in the military in the form of desertion by lower ranks and opposition by higher ranks of the military. This is now beginning to occur. <a href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/print.php?f=1-292925-1930387.php">www.airforcetimes.com/pri...930387.php</a> (see below for article). 2) Opposition by other major nations and the formation of a strong international anti-war, anti-Bush admin movement. More of this is needed, but the first phase, withdrawal from Iraq by the fig leaf 'coalition' nations is occuring en masse. 3) A strong and persistent anti-war movement at home. WHERE IS THIS? Why have there been no large-scale demonstrations in DC organized since last September? Why are the college campuses quiescent? From the AF Times link, above: July 05, 2006 Thousands of troops say they won’t fight By Ana Radelat Gannett News Service Swept up by a wave of patriotism after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Chris Magaoay joined the Marine Corps in November 2004. The newly married Magaoay thought a military career would allow him to continue his college education, help his country and set his life on the right path. Less than two years later, Magaoay became one of thousands of military deserters who have chosen a lifetime of exile or possible court-martial rather than fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. “It wasn’t something I did on the spur of the moment,” said Magaoay, a native of Maui, Hawaii. “It took me a long time to realize what was going on. The war is illegal.” Magaoay said his disillusionment with the military began in boot camp in Twentynine Palms, Calif., where a superior officer joked about killing and mistreating Iraqis. When his unit was deployed to Iraq in March, Magaoay and his wife drove to Canada, joining a small group of deserters who are trying to win permission from the Canadian government to stay. “We’re like a tight-knit family,” Magaoay said. The Pentagon says deserters like Magaoay represent a tiny fraction of the nation’s fighting forces. “The vast majority of soldiers who desert do so for personal, family or financial problems, not for political or conscientious objector purposes,” said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the Army. Since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, the Pentagon says. More than half served in the Army. But the Army says numbers have decreased each year since the United States began its war on terror in Afghanistan. Those who help war resisters say desertion is more prevalent than the military has admitted. “They lied in Vietnam with the amount of opposition to the war and they’re lying now,” said Eric Seitz, an attorney who represents Army Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to the war in Iraq. Watada is under military custody in Fort Lewis, Wash., because he refused to join his Stryker brigade when it was sent to Iraq last month. Watada said he doesn’t object to war but considers the conflict in Iraq illegal. The Army has turned down his request to resign and plans to file charges against him. Critics of the Iraq war have demonstrated on the lieutenant’s behalf. Conservative bloggers call him a traitor and opportunist. Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said deserters aren’t traitors because they’ve done nothing to help America’s enemies. But he rejects arguments that deserters have a moral right to refuse to fight wars they consider unjust. “None of us can choose our wars. They’re always a political decision,” Davis said. “They’re letting their buddies down and hurting morale - and morale is everything on the battlefront.” Because today’s military is an all-volunteer force, troops seeking objector status must convince superior officers they’ve had an honest change of heart about the morality of war. The last time the U.S. military executed a deserter was World War II. But hundreds face court-martials and imprisonment every year. Members of the armed forces are considered absent without leave when they are unaccounted for. They become deserters after they’ve been AWOL for 30 days. A 2002 Army report says desertion is fairly constant but tends to worsen during wartime, when there’s an increased need for troops and enlistment standards are more lax. They also say deserters tend to be less educated and more likely to have engaged in delinquent behavior than other troops. Army spokesman Hilferty said the Army doesn’t try to find deserters. Instead, their names are given to civilian law enforcement officers who often nab them during routine traffic stops and turn them over to the military. Commanders then decide whether to rehabilitate or court-martial the alleged deserter. There’s an incentive to rehabilitate because it costs the military an average of $38,000 to recruit and train a replacement. Jeffry House, an attorney in Toronto who represents Magaoay and other deserters, said there are about 200 deserters living in Canada. They have decided not to seek refugee status but instead are leading clandestine lives, he said. Like many of the people helping today’s war resisters, House fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War. About 50,000 Americans sought legal residency in Canada during the Vietnam era. “You would apply at the border and if you didn’t have a criminal record, you were in,” House said. He said changes in Canadian law make it harder for resisters to flee north. Now, potential immigrants must apply for Canadian residency in their home countries. Resisters say that exposes them to U.S. prosecution.

by **greencrow0** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:03 pm

There are massive demonstrations that go unreported. I wonder what's going on in Mexico City as I type...Obrador has asked his supporters to go to the central square to protest the fraudulent 'election'. How much will we read and see about this demonstration in the news? Stay tuned. GC

by **isachar** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:30 pm

Greencrow, you write: "There are massive demonstrations that go unreported." There's been nothing in DC since last September. Link to Mexico thread, where demonstrations concerning the stolen Presidential election are and will likely continue to happen over the next few weeks: <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=4975.topic&start=21&stop=30">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=30</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 7/8/06 12:31 pm

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:06 pm

I think there is some truth to what Greencrow is telling us. There are groups of people large and small all over the country trying to make their will known about the war and many other issues. Our "free press" lets none of this through. Here is just one example: A Republic or an Empire? By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Gentle reader, did you know that in April President Bush went to Stanford University to speak to the Hoover Institution fellows at the invitation of former Secretary of State George Shultz but was not allowed on campus? The Stanford students got wind of it and blocked Bush's access to the campus. The Hoover fellows had to go to Shultz's home to hear Bush's pitch for war and more war. A person might think that it would be national news that Stanford University students would not allow the President of the US on campus. It happened to be a day that hundreds of prospective freshmen were on campus with their parents, many of whom joined the demonstration against Bush. I did not hear or read a word about it. Did you? I learned of it from faculty friends in June when I attended Stanford's graduation to witness a relative receive her degree. The June 16 edition of The Stanford Daily reprints its April 24 report of the episode. At the graduation, I was struck by the preponderance of Asians, Africans, and Hispanics in the the student body. Stanford is truly an international university, a noted difference from the days when I was a member of the university. Looking at the list of graduates in human biology, which I understand to be a pre-med degree, I count 24 white and Jewish males out of a graduation class of 206. That means 88.35 percent of the graduating class in human biology was Asian, African, Hispanic, and female. If white males were a "preferred minority" protected by quotas, they could certainly bring a discrimination suit against Stanford. My count could be off a bit as a result of the modern practice of giving girls boys' names and giving boys girls' names, but on the whole I was able to resolve the gender issue by consulting middle names. One thing is clear. At Stanford the days of white male hegemony are over. To my readers I want to thank you for your emails and occasional old fashioned letters delivered by US mail. I have learned that I am loved by some and hated by others. I continually hear interesting things from readers. Recently I heard from a Russian that Bush's slogan, "you are with us or against us" comes from a communist song dating from 1950, "The one who is not with us is against us." The slogan was part of the propaganda used to suppress dissent. Now for the main subject of the column. Martin Sieff is one of the few remaining American reporters who actually report facts instead of covering up for Bush. Sieff is elated at the US Supreme Court ruling blocking the use of military tribunals to punish alleged "terrorists." Sieff says the ruling means that "the United States is still a republic, not an empire." I hope Martin Sieff is right. But why will Bush pay any more attention to a Supreme Court ruling than he does to the US Constitution, US law, Congress, and public opinion? Bush and his criminal government have decided that they can use 9/11 and the fear and mindlessness it has brought to the American people to elevate the executive branch into its own world of unaccountable power. As Congress, the Democratic Party, and the media have all collapsed in the face of Bush's power grab, why will Bush pay any attention to a court ruling? The Supreme Court, like the Pope, hasn't any divisions or a police force with which to arrest Bush. Moreover, as one reader pointed out, the majority decision against Bush was written by an 86-year old man. His decision shredded the incompetent and utterly ignorant ruling of the lower court written by John Roberts, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. An 86-year old man hasn't a lot of time left to protect our rights from executive power grabs. All Bush has to do is to appoint one more Federalist Society tyrant to the Court, and he will have a second rubber stamp of his dictatorial ways. He already has Congress which has made it clear that it is perfectly comfortable with Bush's high-handed behavior. Democrats are too intimidated by 9/11 and the phony "war on terror" to offer any opposition. With the electronic voting machines supplied by Republican firms and programmed by Republican operatives, Bush can control election results. Don't bet very heavily that Americans will regain the constitutional protections and democratic accountability that they enjoyed in the 20th century. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

What it takes to stop a phony war

What it takes to stop a phony war

Re: What it takes to stop a phony war

Re: What it takes to stop a phony war

People protesting but no coverage

Who is online