Filmmaker Michael Moore Calls Canada 'Shameful' on U.S. War Dodgers

[Hissyspit]

Source: The Canadian Press

Filmmaker Michael Moore calls Canada 'shameful' on U.S. war dodgers
By: Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press
16/09/2010 6:04 PM | Comments: 0

TORONTO - Renowned left-wing American documentary maker Michael Moore on Thursday blasted Canada's position on U.S. war dodgers as shameful. Speaking at the Toronto International Film Festival, Moore said Ottawa's refusal to allow U.S. soldiers opposed to the war in Iraq to find safe haven in this country betrays what the country once stood for.
"It is absolutely shameful how Canada has behaved toward those who have resisted this war," Moore said. "It's not the Canada that we used to know."

Moore, who has produced several acclaimed documentaries, noted Canada was sympathetic to American soldiers who refused to fight in Vietnam in the 1970s. Draft dodgers who fled the U.S. for Canada were allowed to stay here and many became productive citizens, even after they were allowed to return home.

"This country was so generous to those of my generation who did not want to kill Vietnamese and opened the doors," Moore said. "They stayed here, most of them, after clemency was granted, raised families here, became Canadians and contributed."

Scores of American soldiers have deserted in opposition to the war on Iraq — some after deployment, others pre-deployment — and fled to Canada beginning more than six years ago. None has been successful in seeking asylum in Canada, with bids for refugee status denied on the grounds that they would be prosecuted, not persecuted, if they returned to the U.S. Their cases remain caught up in labyrinthine refugee hearings and various

Read more: http://www.brandonsun.com/national/breaking-news/filmmaker-michael-moore-calls-canada-shameful-on-us-war-dodgers-103094579.html?thx=y

[iandhr]

1. There was a huge difference

In Vietnam those kids were drafted these guys and gals volunteered.

I guess that distinction is on the mind of more then one Canadian.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Actually, iirc Canada permitted draft dodgers to enter, but

not deserters. If you went before you were inducted, you were OK because Canada had no draft & wouldn't deport you for something they didn't consider a crime. However, they had (and obviously hstill have) laws against desertion, and would deport them. Sweden was the best country for deserters. They wouldn't deport you.

[Hissyspit]

7. The war was illegal.

The people were evading illegal orders.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Then they should use that as a court-martial defense, not run away

Considering that *every one of them* agreed under oath to be subject to the UCMJ, it's a little too late for do-overs...

[Hissyspit]

10. Moore is talking about Canada's response in historical context.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. And he missed the context, as Canada would not accept Vietnam-era deserters

Draft dodgers, yes. But not deserters

[Hissyspit]

14. The draft was legal. This war was not.

So by your logic, Canada's response should have been the other way around?

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. What is your rationale for claiming Vietnam was legal but not Iraq?

[Hissyspit]

26. Where did I claim Vietnam was legal?

[USArmyParatrooper]

29. You're right. I misread your post.

[DeSwiss]

19. Both wars are illegal.

One based upon lies about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. And the other based upon lies about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

K&R

[Tempest]

20. Tonkin was well after the U.S. was involved in Vietnam

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm

The lies were already told long before Tonkin.

[DeSwiss]

21. Mostly "advisors" before then.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident ratcheted up everything, and got Congress squarely behind the war. Before this, Kennedy was talking about removing even the "advisors" and I believe that's why he was killed.

I was watching all this from my perch as a junior in high school, hoping I wouldn't get drafted later when I graduated. Because I had already decided I wouldn't. So Canada was my next stop. But they never pulled my number.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents, one disputed, involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a DESOTO patrol, was engaged by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron.<1> A sea battle resulted, in which the Maddox expended over 280 3" and 5" shells, and which involved the strafing from four USN F-8 Crusader jet fighter bombers. One US aircraft was damaged, one 14.5mm round hit the destroyer, 3 North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and 4 North Vietnamese sailors were killed and 6 were wounded; there were no U.S. casualties.<5>

The second Tonkin Gulf incident was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on August 4, 1964, as a naval battle, but instead may have involved the "Tonkin Ghosts"<6>, and no actual NVN Torpedo Boat attacks. The outcome of this second incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

[Tempest]

30. You made a claim that wasn't accurate

You said:

One based upon lies about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Not true. The U.S. was already knee deep in the Vietnam war long before Tonkin.


The first U.S. combat missions in Vietnam started in 1958. The first U.S. combat fatality was in 1959.

Eisenhower made his communism speech to justify sending additional combat troops to Vietnam in 1959.

[DeSwiss]

40. We weren't fighting a war under Eisenhower.

So I still say that the WAR was illegal. A few hundred advisers versus 500,000 troops is a HUGE DIFFERENCE in commitment. So obviously what was going on previously in the late 1950s wasn't sufficient provocation to get a full commitment for war from the American public. So the fucking bastards in the NSA/CIA came up with this bullshit Gulf of Tonkin affair to take us into a full-fledged war.

If you cannot see the difference between our minimal military involvement that was taking place under Eisenhower/Kennedy, and how things escalated into a WAR under Lyndon Johnson, then there's no point in carrying this convo any further.

Thank you.

[ProudDad]

42. And the USAmerikan Empire was fucking up Iraq

Long before 9/11...

Unless one doesn't consider Clinton killing 500,000 kids "involvement"...

[Luminous Animal]

15. Do you have a source for that? I can find nothing to support your claim.

Though I have found plenty that hint otherwise.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Has that assertion ever been proven in a court of law?

[ProudDad]

43. The "law" is an ass...

The "law" is the enforcer of the USAmerikan Empire...

Don't expect justice or truth to come out of the "law"...

As for your question, a HUGE number of USAmerikan actions in Vietnam (and Iraq and Afghanistan and Nicaragua and Honduras, Cuba and many, many other places on Earth) are considered and many of them adjudicated as breaches of international law...

[Hissyspit]

47. Pardon begged for answering a question with a question...

But do I give a shit?

Illegal is illegal. No one was going to "prove" it in a court of law here.

Lt. Watada used it as a pretty good defense.

[hughee99]

2. Does Canada not have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If Canada has troops there, AND Canada has soldiers who go AWOL, and Canada is punishing it's own soldiers for going AWOL, how does it accept AWOL soldiers from another country fighting the same war?

[iandhr]

12. In Afghanistan

They do not have troops in Iraq. But your point is well taken

[USArmyParatrooper]

4. Good for Canada

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is apples and oranges. In Vietnam we had a draft. If you want to pick and choose which wars you fight then don't join the military. You don't get to take advantage of all the pay and bennefits only to desert your fellow troopers when it's time to deploy.

[Hissyspit]

6. The war was illegal.

[USArmyParatrooper]

17. And which court decided that exactly?

I guess that means Soldiers never get prosecuted for missing movement.

[LanternWaste]

36. No more, nor no less than...

"I guess that means Soldiers never get prosecuted for missing movement...."

No more, nor no less than "I guess that means Soldiers never get prosecuted for following orders."

[USArmyParatrooper]

37. They do, so your analogy doesn't make your point.

Unlawful orders are required NOT to be followed. Yet troops deploy regularly and no court has stopped it. What's more is the fact that troops are prosecuted for •not• obeying deployment orders.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Really. They voluntarily joined an ARMY, not a rifle club with uniforms n/t

[dflprincess]

23. In a spasm of post 9/11 hysteria a good number of people -

many of them 18 and 19 year olds got sucked in by the lies and signed up thinking they were going to protect the country. Others have joined because of the miserable economic situation. Some were lied to by recruiters and were just naive enough to fall for that. (One of my nephews had a recruiter tell him that he could be trained for jobs where he wouldn't be "on the front line". Nephew not being an idiot asked if that meant he wouldn't be sent to Iraq or Afghansitan - he got something of a song & dance from the recruiter so he finally said to the guy "I think I'll ask my aunt what that means." He said the recruiter nearly blew a gasket at that. But there are kids who haven't wouldn't know that "not be on the front line" were weasel words and not ask that it be spelled out.)

If doing a tour in Iraq woke some up to how they had been lied to - either by Bush or a recruiter, I can't fault them for deserting. And they knew damn well that there was no way a military court would have accepted the "illegal order" defense even for those who refused to torture prisoners. - Only enemy soldiers get held to that standard.

Pierre Trudeau once promised that Canada would always be a haven from militarism. It is a pity it hasn't kept his promise.

[USArmyParatrooper]

25. They joined the *military*, NOT the Iraq war

What I mean by that is IT DOES NOT MATTER if they joined with one view of Iraq that later changed. "I changed my view of Iraq" is no different from saying "we weren't at war when I joined." You do not have a choice of which wars you fight, and that includes new wars that pop up or wars that you change your mind on.

When you are 18 or 19 you're an adult responsible for your own actions and your own decisions. If you commit a crime you go to big-boy prison. You can have a say in who runs this country. And if you still believe they need to be coddled, they also have parents - the vast majority of which are heavily involved in their decisions.

As far as many joining due to a miserable economic situation, so what? They join to collect the pay and benefits so it's OK for them to leave their fellow troops hanging as they fulfill their responsibility?

[dflprincess]

27. A good many joined right after 9/11 and before we were lied into Iraq

they signed up thinking they were going to protect the country, not Exxon, etal.

Eighteen & nineteen year olds may legally be considered adults but they're not known for their common sense and the biological fact is the brain isn't fully mature until age 25 and the last part that does develop is the part that tells a person "that would be a dumb thing to do" (there's a reason car insurance rates drop at that age). That's why recruiters go after the high school crowd so hard; they know they're really still kids and apt to be dazzled by what the person in the uniform tells them and even more apt not to think the whole thing through.

One of my coworkers sons went out and enlisted the day he turned 18 despite pleas from his parents that he at least wait a year. This is a kid who has done well academically and whose parents could afford to send him to college (and he had been accepted to a good one) but since he was 9 or 10 he's heard all about the "enemies" out to get us and he enlisted because he wants "to get bin Laden" and like so many before him has delusions about the "glory" of war and the recruiter did nothing but feed those fantasies.

Sorry, but until the recruiters and politicians tell the truth about what a kid may be getting into, my sympathy lies with those who wake up and try to get out.

[USArmyParatrooper]

28. You're still not getting it

You do not get to choose your wars. How is changing your mind about a war any different from a new war popping up that you don't agree with?

You also have numerous misconceptions about recruiting and recruiters. I was on recruiter duty myself so I would say I'm fully qualified to speak on the matter.

Going after the high school crowd "so hard" is not true. The target age is 18-24 and that is actually by doctrine. And it's not because 18 to 24 year olds have 'under developed brains.' It's because that's the age where it makes the most sense, when you go through transition periods where choices are made. And for many the military is a viable, even ideal choice. The vast majority of people who join do so after high school, not before. And speaking from experience the vast majority (note I didn't say all) of 17-20 year olds have strong parental involvement in their decision. Edit: And literally all 17 year olds because they require parental consent.

As far as your coworkers friend... if he really thought he was going "to get Bin Laden" I find it very surprising he excelled in academics.

Saying "until recruiters tell the truth" is not only broad brushing recruiters, it's broad brushing soldiers in general. Recruiters are active duty military, most of which have been to Iraq and will likely deploy again. I always told the truth without fail. But if someone visited my station with a hidden camera do you really think they're going to publicize my interview? Fuck no. They're going to shop from station to station until they catch a moron, publicize it and say, "See! Recruiters lie!"

[No Elephants]

31. A trooper is not supposed to engage in war crimes. Participating in an

illegal war is a war crime. Of course, no one bothers much about things like that anymore. It's so WW II.

[wmbrew0206]

34. OK. Please show me ONE, just ONE, US Court that said the Iraq War was illegal.

That is the standard that the US Military goes by. Until a court says the POTUS orders are illegal, the US Military is duty bound to carry them out.

As other have said, if the Iraq War was illegal, then a court martial trial would be a great place to prove it.

There was no draft and every member of the military volunteered at least once, in a lot of cases more than once. You know joining that you could ended up fighting in a war, but you don't get to pick and choose which ones you fight in.

The military is not a future job training organization and should not be joined for that reason.

[dflprincess]

38. Yes, they do go after high schools very hard

most my nieces and nephews were all hammered by recruiters during their last couple years in school when they were under 18. Part of NCLB is that schools turn over contact information to the military unless the parents opt out (something not generally known). My SIL tried to get the younger kids names off the list but they had already been sent in.

And no, it is not surprising that a kid who does well academically would have delusions of "glory" when having war fantasies fed to him. Smart kids are still dealing with the same immature brain and hormone problems other kids that age are.

[USArmyParatrooper]

41. Well it's good to know you're more knowledgable about recruiting than someone who's actually done it

Using a dysphemism like "hammered" does nothing to validate your point. Saying recruiters "hit high schools hard because.." is implying they're a central focus. They are not. Setting up tables at high schools and calling from the high school list is simply another check the block. High school seniors actually comprise a small percentage of our enlistments.

"Part of NCLB is that schools turn over contact information to the military unless the parents opt out (something not generally known)."

This is also true of colleges and we set up tables and call from college lists as well. So guess recruiters "hit colleges hard" as well?

"And no, it is not surprising that a kid who does well academically would have delusions of "glory" when having war fantasies fed to him."

Don't go changing things up now. You said he thought he was going to get Bin Laden. And by the way, "pushing war fantasies" isn't part of recruiting doctrine, I've never seen that done and in my opinion it would be a very poor recruiting technique.

[demosincebirth]

16. What the hell did they join for? Did they think they were joining some kind

of militia group that goes out in the wood and shoots guns, but no one shoot back.?

[No Elephants]

32. Who said getting shot at was their issue? You're pretending there's no such thing as a matter of

conscience, so all issues must boil down to stupidity and/or cowardice.

And heaven forbid some 17 year old, possibly not too bright to begin with, reconsiders his or her decision, given how laid back recruiting is.

:sarcasm:

[USArmyParatrooper]

35. Their 'issue' varies from person to person and they're all irrelevant.

They volunteered. They made a commitment. They have a responsibility. They abandoned their responsibility and they abandoned their comrades.

[ProudDad]

44. I applaud ANY soldier who finally gets it

and removes themselves from use as tools of Empire...

Huzza to the "deserter", shame on those who kill and fuck for the Empire...

[3waygeek]

5. I read once that Canada only extradites people

charged with offenses recognized as crimes in Canada. Draft dodging wasn't illegal in Canada, since they didn't (and don't have) a draft, so Vietnam-era draft dodgers were OK. Desertion, however, is recognized as a crime in Canada, unless GWB does it.

[karynnj]

11. In the 1960s, it was draft dodgers - avoiding going into the service

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, more and more of the population that had any connections were using them to legally avoid service. (Note Dan Quayle, George Bush and Bill Clinton) I don't know Canada's policy on deserters. I remember hearing many went to Sweden.

Now, they are also involved in the wars and the people seeking refuge are deserters.

[defendandprotect]

22. We've counted on Canadians to be kinder and more intelligent than we are--!!!

What happened??

[ProudDad]

45. Uh, they never really were? (n/t)

[Arrowhead2k1]

24. Canada is ruled by a Conservative government based out of Alberta (Cowboy country).

/thread.

[No Elephants]

33. The world is more conservative today.

[ProudDad]

46. The world is not "conservative"

It's time to question the use of that word to describe that disastrous point of view.

I'm conservative.

I want the Earth to remain a home for large air-breathing mammals and other creatures and plants who live here...

Those who call themselves "conservative" are destroying the Earth along with their codependant capitalists from the democrat party.

USAmerica has gone bat-shit crazy fascist right-wing... What's called the "center" now would have been willing followers of Joe McCarthy in the early 50s, make Nixon look like a Liberal and are selfish as hell.