Flicks Von Flick In Toronto

forgot to mention, more info at:<br> <br> <a href="http://www.armedrabble.org">ARMED RABBLE</a><br><p>---<br>“Sex, Drugs, Love, Marx...” <br />
Flick Harrison’s new digital feature <br />
MP3, trailer, scenes and stills at: <br />
http://www.armedrabble.org/sdlm.htm

U.S. Army volunteers should be held responsible for their choices instead of being allowed to run away. They signed up, so they should honour their commitments or accept the consequences like men, a year in military stockade apparently. Canadians shouldn't facilitate the irresponsible actions of these boys.

They signed up to defend and protect the US constitution from all enemies foriegn and domestic. They felt the mission they were asked to participate in was illegal, and therefore asked for objector status, and were denied. Their only option was to go AWOL.<p> Not even the US forces want mindless drone killing machines. I applaud them for using their brains, and not invading another country under questionable circumstances.<p><p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

FYI, a contract is not valid if the contract includes illegal
activities. I.e. if you agree to kill your mother for a
million dollars, I can't take you to court if you change
your mind. That should be obvious.

And even if killing your mother was legal, I hope that
wouldn't make you feel obligated to do it just 'cos you
signed a contract. "But dad, you always said I should
follow through on my commitments..."

You may think I'm exaggerating, but hey, how many
mothers have been killed in Iraq? Lots. By US
volunteers "doing their duty" and "sticking to their
commitments."

---
“Sex, Drugs, Love, Marx...”
Flick Harrison’s new digital feature
MP3, trailer, scenes and stills at:
http://www.armedrabble.org/sdlm.htm

'questionable circumstances' and 'illegal activities' are debateable opinions, not facts. The UN condemned Saddam how many times? a dozen at least, would two dozen condemnations have made each resolution more legal? one condemnation? No, the UN's pretty well made itself irrelevant anyway, who cares what a cabal of dictator's representatives think, they hijack the democratic process within UN bodies but would never endorse democracy for the people they oppress. Saddam posed a credible threat to the region obviously, to the West through his support for terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and of course to the people of Iraq. The American presence in the region has been a lightning rod for al-Qeada suicide killers who want to 'martyr' themselves of course and that is unfortunate, but ultimately it's still a job worth doing. The people that live in the 22 countries of the Arab League, all non-democratic, will one day appreciate the freedom provided by the Americans just like the former colonies of the Communist East Bloc now appreciate their freedom.

Democracy is not an export, it comes from within or it doesn't develop at all.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

<i>'questionable circumstances' and 'illegal activities' are debateable opinions, not facts.</i><p> No they aren't. There as yet are no credible Saddam Al Queda connections. There are no WMD's. The sanctions were working, and Saddam was letting in UN inspectors and was destroying his long range SCUD missles. There was no declaration of war - therefore Iraq was invaded and is controlled by an occupying force. Both Iraq and the US were signatories to the Geneva Conventions on War.<p> If the UN oil for food inspectors hadn't been on the take, and Russia and France were forced to implement the sanctions too, Saddam's downfall would have accellerated. The CIA backed out of the best way - foster resentment internally then say "Look! Over there! Crates full of guns!"<p> It worked against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and hastened the downfall of Stalinizm, Iraq would have been a cakewalk. And they would have earned their freedom, not had a US friendly regime installed.<p><p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

What is NOT questionable is that the invasion WAS ILLEGAL under international law. It was made "legal" only after military victory when the Security Council passed Resolution 1483