The Shotgun Blog
« Auburn comes to Vancouver | Main | Bad week all around »
Saturday, September 13, 2008
It takes “courage” to resist: Libertarian Party leader praises Iraq war resister
In a packed room in the basement of the Parkdale United Church in Calgary, Dennis Young, a veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia and leader of the Libertarian Party, today told Iraq war resister Chuck Wiley to ignore the critics who call him a coward: “What you have done takes courage,” said Young to a roar of applause.
Chief Petty Officer Wiley, a self-described Ron Paul libertarian and 17-year military veteran, told an audience of peace activists that he deserted the U.S. military after he was forced to choose between upholding his sworn oath to defend the constitution and participating in illegal war activities.
Wiley says the U.S. military, as an occupying army, is not adhering to the Geneva Convention with regard to the treatment of civilians. He also argues that non-combat personnel are being pushed into combat leadership roles without adequate training, and that the military is violating the terms of its contract with rank-and-file soldiers with its stop-loss mandatory re-enlistment program.
War Resisters Support Campaign, a co-sponsor of the event, says an estimated 700 U.S. soldiers have taken refuge in Canada since the invasion of Iraq began in 2003. In a press release, the organization said: “These are soldiers who love their country, but vehemently oppose this war. They put down their guns, refused to fight, and fled to Canada to start new lives. They have sacrificed family, friends, homes, community and jobs in order to exercise their consciences.”
Former soldiers like Wiley, however, are being deported back to the U.S. as their political refugee claims are being rejected, despite a motion passed in parliament on June 3, 2008 to allow U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada.
“The Harper government should respect the will of parliament and immediately stop these deportations,” said Young.
Photo: Iraq war resister Chief Petty Officer Chuck Wiley (on the left) with Libertarian Party leader Dennis Young
Posted by Matthew Johnston on September 13, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534a13201970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It takes “courage” to resist: Libertarian Party leader praises Iraq war resister:
Comments
Makes sense I guess. Ron Paul did recieve more donations from the military than all other candidates combined when he was still in the running.
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-13 6:18:47 PM
Never thought I'd see the day that those who believe in freedom would mingle with the Liebral Party, the NDP and the Greens.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-13 7:05:01 PM
"War Resisters" are nothing but cowards with a different name. They mock every fighting man and woman who signed the line and serves with honor. As a Forces member, I do not want any deserters in our country. They should be deported back to the US. You can exercise your conscience but be prepared to deal with the consequences. If these resisters really believed in their country but were against the war, they would grow a pair and deal with the consequences. They are cowards in two ways, not only are they abandoning their comrades, they aren't hanging around to do deal with the consequences.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-09-13 7:44:36 PM
I thought libertarians were all about 'contracts' and honoring the same... Seems odd that libertarians would celebrate anyone who willingly broke a contract that they had willingly signed to begin with...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-13 7:56:12 PM
Yup he's a coward alright; afraid, despite having been deployed on a ship (not exactly harm's way), and breaking the terms of his enlistment.
"Wiley says the U.S. military, as an occupying army, is not adhering to the Geneva Convention with regard to the treatment of civilians."
One man's opinion. Try using that before your CO! S/he'll get a giggle while signing your dishonorable discharge papers.
"He also argues that non-combat personnel are being pushed into combat leadership roles without adequate training,"
Chicken! buck buck buck!
"that the military is violating the terms of its contract with rank-and-file soldiers with its stop-loss mandatory re-enlistment program."
Then he should read his contract more closely - it authorizes involuntary extensions.
The guy had a safe job yet still complains. Most would love to have his job. If he was a Navy corpsman assigned to the Marines, I could see how he'd be afraid. But since his job was in the nuclear plant of a carrier, he was rarely even going to see daylight let alone land. Oh well, he'll have plenty to talk to himself about during his 18 months in Leavenworth, and while he's working some dead-end job for the rest of his life. All he had to do was endure for a while and he'd have his pension.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-13 7:57:57 PM
Ike's knee-jerk admiration of fascism obscures his ability to distinguish that no one is obligated to carry through any job which violates their conscience. A person should be able to quit any job at any time, including the military. The state thinks and behaves like it owns our lives, but it does not.
The US got into this war based entirely on a lie. Every explanation for war turned out to be false. The President should be tried in a US court for mass murder. The Canadians who serve in Afghanistan are lackeys of US imperialism, although perhaps IKE is simply too bloodthirsty and hates Muslims too much to care.
Read this Ike..
Our US "allies" are amoral savages...The Lost War
Part Two
by RICHARD NEVILLE of the UK Guardian, September 11, 2008.
I keep promising myself not to mention the wars for these reasons: the US invaders couldn't care less about their crimes or their critics, my friends think I've become a ranting bore and many of today's citizens have more pressing worries than the serial massacres of toddlers in badlands of Afghanistan. Bad stuff keeps happening. It keeps being denied. And is soon forgotten.
From the very first days of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. air force has specialized in dropping bombs on family compounds supposedly containing "militants". Often they are not at home, unlike the women and children and elderly, whose bodies are eventually spread on the ground in preparation for a mass burial, while the Pentagon issues a curt "regret". Then it bombs the funeral. It's happened more than once. Another target is wedding is parties. Back in July 2002, snug in their AC-130 bombers, American pilots wiped out a celebration in Uruzgan province, killing 48 civilians - mostly women and children - and injuring 117 locals. It's happened more than once.
It happened again this July, when a US missile strike slaughtered 27 guests in Nangarhar province, 19 of them women and children. When locals arrived at the scene to care for the injured and collect the dead, four more bombs were unleashed, killing the bride and two of her relatives.
It's been much the same in Iraq and Pakistan, though barely reported. We kill on the hint of a whisper, kill because we can, kill because we rule the skies. Even as the Pentagon continued to deny its August massacre of 60 children and 15 women in Nawabad, in the district of Azizabad, Afghanistan, the bombs were raining down on a religious school in Waziristan, a tribal area of north west Pakistan. (The fourth U.S. assault this week on its "ally").
Unleashed by two drones, the strikes killed 23 people, though not the intended target, Jalaluddin Haqqani, a religious scholar and former commander of the U.S.-backed mujahideen which trounced the Russians ("Charlie's War"). Twenty others were wounded, mainly women and children. The guys who push the buttons at the Creech Air Force base in Nevada, managed to murder one of Haqqani wives, his sister-in-law, a sister, two nieces, eight grandchildren and a male relative.
"Sitting in a virtual cockpit is not as exciting as flying a fighter jet", noted CNN's breathless Laurie Ure, "but unmanned attack-plane pilots can enjoy a normal workday schedule". Captain Matt Dean agrees, "seeing bad guys on the screen and watching them possibly get dispatched, and then going down to the Taco Bell for lunch, it's kind of surreal". This is the Pentagon's version of Second Life, soon to be known as Exit Life. One day it will come to a war near you.
The latest unmanned bomber is called the Reaper and caries the same payload as an F-16 fighter plane, but happily, Laurie assures us - ‘its pilots are not put in harm's way.' Of course not, they're eating tacos. Col. Chris Chambliss is commander of the 432nd Air Expeditionary Wing, which was established last year as the first unit dedicated to unmanned aerial systems and remote controlled assassinations. "We're the victims of our own success", he tells a Defence correspondent, while he plays tapes of the victims of the Reaper. Chambliss says there is an "insatiable appetite" for his systems and their "capabilities" and his air-wing is currently flying 28 combat air patrols around the clock, and rising.
On Sept 8, while the boys from Creech were wolfing down their tacos, the London Times published an eight-minute of video of the massacre in Azizabad, the "most compelling evidence to emerge" of 75 civilian deaths. The hero here is an unnamed Afghan doctor who arrived at the scene with a cell phone and shot footage of weeping parents, injured children and charred babies - line upon line of shrouded corpses. Along with attack helicopters and a C130 Spectre gunship, armed drones were used in the attack.
And so it goes, this depressing spiral of wars without end, arms trading, Government lies, the obliteration of the innocent and an insane certainty that our Kilpingesque military missions are wise and noble. Oh yes, Australia's on board, fists flying. We're building a bigger navy to defend our sea lanes from, er, what? Oh yes, Asia's ascent. George Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain are pushing for a "surge" in Afghanistan, a country which never attacked anyone. True, it did harbor Osama bin Laden, just as America once harbored the Shah of Iran and still harbors anti-Castro terrorists and fully backed General Pinochet and nourished Pervez Musharraf and still trains torturers, etc, but as yet no army has invaded Washington. Not one country has ever had the courage to impose sanctions on the nation with the most evil and rapacious military policies on the planet.
Why are we in Afghanistan? "To spread democracy". Surely it's death we're spreading. If we cared about democracy we'd be listening to the locals, who want us out. In the most recent survey of public opinion, (this June, prior to the latest bout of killings), "more than six out of ten of those interviewed... said that foreign troops should leave." And let's not mention the encroaching famine - no-one else does.
The only war worth fighting anymore, is the war against carbon emissions. Instead of which, we're being sucked into an arms build-up, which will further scorch the planet. The chance of changing this priority is slim, given the West's long devotion to bloody combat. According to Johan Galtung, a longtime peace researcher and futurist, the "number of people killed in overt Pentagon-driven military action after the Second World War is now between 13 and 17 million". That's not a misprint. The number of people killed in covert action is "at least 6 million". Such figures are not to be found on Fox News, or even in the New York Times.
So while war may be hell, it's as American as apple pie, and unlikely to disappear before we do. It also explains why John McCain is edging ever closer the White House. In an era when Geneva is mocked, dissent ineffective and baby killing tolerated, it is strangely perfect that a presidential aspirant and his running mate should have blood on their hands, whether of Vietnamese civilians or an Alaskan Moose. If America signs up to this dark adventure, forget about calming the weather, restoring the eco system and embarking on an age of sustainability and transformation. All you'll get is a blood bath.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-13 8:03:09 PM
BORING!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-13 8:07:26 PM
Marc,
You miss the point. Put aside that he's a coward for abandoning his comrades. He's a coward because he won't deal with the consequences of his choice. He's refusing to take responsiblity for his actions. If he really believed in his principles he would endure the consequences of his actions but he's running away from the consequences! Sounds like a coward to me! Nothing but a p*ssy. Sorry for my french.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-09-13 8:07:58 PM
Given the choice between, on the one hand, going to war where will face the risk of death or permanent serious physical injury (not to mention the psychological problems returnting soldiers face) or, on the other hand, spending a brief time in jail and then heading back to normal life, choosing jail is not the brave choice. It is clearly the less dangerous choice, so it can't be the brave one.
But if we introduce a third option: Going to Canada and NEITHER risking death or injury NOR having to go to jail, then of the three possibilities going to Canada is the safest, therefore it cannot possible be a brave choice. So, no, what Chuck Wiley did is not brave. Now, that still does not make it cowardly and it still does not show that what he did was wrong, it just shows that it isn't brave.
The Iraq war was clearly wrong to start and the US military has used more than merely questionable methods in waging it, but I am not convinced that this makes it Canada's business to get involved in Chuck Wiley versus the USA. If the Americans were going to shoot him for desertion, the story would be different, but they won't. They might not even jail him at all. If they do, that still seems to me to be something that is for Chuck Wiley and his government to sort out. He should man up, go home, and resist the war from there, even if it is from a jail cell. Just as it is interventionist foreign policy for the US to have invaded Iraq, it is interventionist foreign policy for Canada to take a side between the US government and its citizens.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-09-13 8:13:52 PM
"Ike's knee-jerk admiration of fascism obscures his ability to distinguish that no one is obligated to carry through any job which violates their conscience. A person should be able to quit any job at any time, including the military. The state thinks and behaves like it owns our lives, but it does not."
Marc you're ignoring the fact that this deserter freely signed a legally binding CONTRACT. If he is unwilling or incapable of fulfilling his legal obligations under that contract, he should rightfully face the legal consequences of the same.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-13 8:21:19 PM
Hey Emery, maybe you and Wiley can share a cell!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-13 8:23:17 PM
A few considerations:
1. Wiley also swore to uphold the Constitution. That, too, is a contract. It seems to me like he believes that the U.S. government is in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution, when it comes to the Iraq War.
If Wiley is sincere (and I think he is) then he is choosing to uphold the more important of the two contracts.
2. Fact Check: I'm not sure if I agree with you. I think war resisters face a tremendous amount of hatred, vitriol, anger, and sometimes abandonment by their families. Consider Ike and Richard here. They're fury is palpable. Surely Wiley knew that that would be the reaction, and surely it is a difficult decision to make.
So I would suspect that it takes at least some courage to defect. Whether it takes "more" courage or less is beside the point, since the claim is not that. Instead, it's the simple claim that it takes courage.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-13 8:37:32 PM
"The only war worth fighting anymore, is the war against carbon emissions." Marc Scott Emery
Have at it, spaz! Heaven help the country with someone like you running it. What a ridiculous assertion...carbon emissions. Those carbon emissions would kick your ass Emery! :)
Meanwhile those volunteer soldiers who deserted their country's fine military and came to Canada should be shipped back in a cattle car to face their court martials.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-09-13 8:38:18 PM
"The only war worth fighting anymore, is the war against carbon emissions."
I can think of one way you and your allies can fight carbon emissions!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-13 8:42:39 PM
So if I hired someone to do my bidding in a two or three or four year contract, are they obligated to kill on my say so? They can't quit the job? They have to kill whomever I say so? They have to do whatever immoral acts I request because they've signed a "Contract"?
Ridiculous and absurd.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-13 8:45:55 PM
Had you ever considered that the military has a special place within government, and within its social contract with the people?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-13 8:47:36 PM
I'd like the contracts that politicians make with voters at election time to be honored, but they never are. Contracts are any agreement between two parties. These are broken all the time. Thats what courts of law are for. No one goes to jail for breaking contracts. A financial sum or the return of property is the remedy.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-13 8:48:26 PM
"The only war worth fighting anymore, is the war against carbon emissions."
Marc, how about you start your fight by stopping aerobic metabolism. All of those byproducts are nasty for the environment. They carry disease.
If you really cared about the environment you would become an advocate of nuclear power. Did you know that a coal fired power plant release 100 times more RADIOACTIVE material into the environment than a nuclear power plant and that a nuclear power plant is "carbon emissions" free?
Posted by: Ike | 2008-09-13 8:53:04 PM
A Canadian soldier is a paid killer, like a cop. A soldier kills on order of a superior.
The soldier gets paid money. Thats his reward. No person asked him to join up, the government's monopoly of force lured him with cash & incentives.
The 97 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan for nothing. Their children are absent a father because of nothing. Their lives were tossed away by the Canadian government. Their death means nothing --- except heartbreak and misery for their families. Their sacrifice means nothing noble at all.
And we're going to lose this war in humiliating fashion if we stay.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-13 8:53:57 PM
Ike,
I am an advocate of nuclear power. Its the safest, cleanest power source ever developed. I read Petr Beckman's book The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear in 1979. Still the best book ever on the subject. But that, Ike, has sweet fuck all to do with this subject.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-13 8:56:57 PM
Talk about a waste of carbon emissions....Marc Scott Emory.
Posted by: markalta | 2008-09-13 8:57:00 PM
FYI, the military isn't a regular job. We are exempt from certain laws and statutes. Did you know that in the military, you aren't entitled to a safe working environment as is guaranteed to other employees in the civilian world? There's a reason we're called soldiers and officers and not employees. It's not a regular job and any dunce knows that. If you don't know that the military is a violent machine and that they kill people then maybe you shouldn't join!
Posted by: Ike | 2008-09-13 8:57:19 PM
I think the story/report lacks some necessary context. Specifically, it is not clear what Young's own views are on the application of the principle of the non-initiation of coercive physical force. Indeed, the Libertarian Party of Canada itself makes a rather ambiguous statement:
"A Libertarian government would adopt a policy of non-intervention, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures." ( http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-defence-foreign.html )
This is ambiguous, because it fails to define "non-intervention" (e.g., does that preclude pre-emptive strikes?), "foreign quarrels" (does that include ones that pose a threat to individual freedom in Canada?), and "imperialist adventures" (like the one that resulted in the formation of Canada...and the USA...and most civilized countries in South America, Africa, and Asia?).
Young himself has been quoted by the Western Standard as saying "While I would like to see Western values dominate the world, we can not and should not do that militarily." Clearly, it is not the role of government to ensure that every person leads a rational (hence "western") life, even in western nations. Rather, the role is to ensure that one CAN live a rational life, if one chooses to do so.
Britain looked upon North America and saw nothing that defends individuals life, liberty and property. It brought men with guns, gold, and plans to trade goods and services. It brought laws to dictate the use of those guns. Lawfully-directed guns were to be used to defend individuals' freedom where it was not being defended.
There are many tracts of land around the globe in which large organizations, calling themselves "government", use guns...some of them even use guns in accordance with rules made by those organizations. But not all of those organizations really are governments. To be governments, they must do what governments do: defend every individual's life, liberty and property. An organization that is not defending every individuals' life, liberty and property, but violating it, is not a government: it is a gang.
It is not necessarily ethically wrong for a government to use force to extend its jurisdiction to a place where government does not exist; where only a powerful gang exists. If a government does so in order to defend its own territory from the emergence - in said un-governed region - of terrorists, it is doing what is ethically right. Such "imperialism" is not wrong: it is proper self-defence.
If, however, the occupants of a foreign land pose no threat to ones own country, then it is wrong to send ones soldiers to that land - to put them in harm's way - to "democratize" it, to defend the freedom of people in that land, or to deliver foreign aid.
I would be interested in knowing whether Mr. Young's support for the deserter is founded upon a belief about desertion, or upon a belief about "imperialism".
Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2008-09-13 9:00:08 PM
Marc, you're an ignorant fool. If you actually knew about the military you'd know that for every 1 soldier at the sharp end there is a 4 are the blunt end who fire their weapons once a year to qualify at the range. There are over 100 trades in the military and about 20 of them could be considered sharp end trades.
FYI, I didn't join for the cash. If I wanted cash I could easily make more elsewhere.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-09-13 9:00:16 PM
"Ike,
I am an advocate of nuclear power. Its the safest, cleanest power source ever developed. I read Petr Beckman's book The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear in 1979. Still the best book ever on the subject. But that, Ike, has sweet fuck all to do with this subject."
Then what does fighting the global warming fraud have to do with this topic?
Posted by: Ike | 2008-09-13 9:02:49 PM
When will people realize that even though the world may not be perfect, that doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. I'd say we in North America are doing very well. We have a standard of living that the rest of the world can only dream about. That's worth protecting. I'm quite content with the way things are. If others want to spend their time complaining, go right ahead. But remember that you are free to do so because of a few brave souls.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-13 9:09:18 PM
My Christian minister brother Steve's son Benjamin has served two tours in Afghanistan, a sniper in a forward S&D unit with Princess Pats. He's a great person and he believes in his work. He would not agree with me on this war. So be it.
He always wanted to be a soldier. Doesn't make him right, nor moral. It just is. He makes his own choices. Its the state that is evil because the state gives form to his desire. Sending Canadian soldiers to fight over a nation of rocks & ignorance is pure folly, and an abuse of Canadian citizens and soldiers.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-13 9:12:00 PM
The last part of the post tells us that the House of Commons voted to allow American war resisters permanent resident status. Did it pass the Senate and has it become law? That would also be a contract and should be honoured. As a retired CF officer I certainly would not want a member beside me unless that member was committed to the mission. My safety would be compromised.
During WWI it was considered treasonous to question American participation in the war. That included contrary opinions. It was "my country right or wrong". What a ridiculous fascist position, especially in the case of a war that was wrong from the "get-go".
Posted by: DML | 2008-09-13 10:25:15 PM
I almost passed over this post, but noticed this fellow had a rank of chief petty officer. That's the navy equivalent of sergeant major. Not exactly a green recruit. I suspect that cowardice had very little to do with his decision.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-13 11:09:48 PM
So a person applies to become a fireman, meets the requirements, receives a written offer (contract) and signs it. All is just great until there is an actual fire and he is called in. At this point he decides he has changed his mind. Guess he would qualify as a fire resister and Canada should open the door to him.
Since joining the military in the US is voluntary, these people need to be deported.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-09-13 11:48:53 PM
Alain,
As he was a soldier with many years in, the correct fireman analogy would be the following;
The fireman fought blazes for many years. But evidence came out that showed the local government was in fact arsoning the buildings to seize them for eminent domain. A media campaign blaming swarthy people in the neighbourhood was sponsored by the government, creating fear and suspicion. Then a friendly developer was handed the charred land to build a new house that was sold at great profit. The fireman felt so betrayed he was sick, and refused to honor any further commitment to the fire department. In fact, before this government was elected, there were far fewer fires. Now the veteran fireman felt he was used, and because other fellow firefighters had died in those blazes, he felt he was now working to conceal the crimes and perfidies of the real criminals.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-14 4:34:28 AM
Some of the comments above are frightening. Of course a person has the right the break a contract if the other side has broken theirs, and the miltary is not 'she who must be obeyed' and never makes a mistake as seems to be promoted by a couple of posts above.
I expect some of the above above would have complained at the few who had the courage to quit the SS in WW2 and other military machines gone wrong. Archie Bunker seems alive and living in Canada tday.
Posted by: Valentine M Smith | 2008-09-14 4:36:59 AM
Valentine,
Ike and Zebulon have been properly brainwashed whereas you and I haven't pledged allegiance to the infallibility of government yet, therefore we are Goldsteins (from Orwell's 1984) who must be ostracized before we infect the morale of the drones who carry out the bloodthirsty orders of the master race. Therefore no amount of senseless savagery is too immoral for Ike or Zeb, they have been trained that every massacre is victory, every casualty on either side is an anointing from God and Government.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-14 5:07:16 AM
I do hope that people like Marc, Valentine and a few others are not involved in any kind business, since for them the concept of honouring one's contract or word clearly means nothing. They also belong to the confused of to-day in believing that adults are not responsible for their decisions. Of course not, so something or someone else is the blame.
The so-called "war resisters" fall into the same and we do not need more people like this.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-09-14 10:05:50 AM
Marc; Have you started smoking more than just pot?
Valentine; The difference between 2008 and 1945 is that we no longer have the draft. Anyone entering the military in North America is doing so of their own free will. They sign a contract. They're free to back out of that contract if they so choose but they have to face the consequences as stipulated in the same.
I don't know where you and your doped-up friend get the idea that people are forced to join the military but your assertion is just plain wrong.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-14 10:08:51 AM
Where's the problem?
A soldier CAN break the terms of their enlistment contract, but like any other contract there are consequences. Most civil contracts have financial penalties. Given the special category of the military, breaking one of their contracts often yields more serious penalties like jail time.
I am hardly brainwashed. I can see both sides of an issue and make my own judgments. My belief is that government can be used for good. Our modern society with all its conveniences is proof of that. It's far from perfect but it's better than the alternative. If people like Emery had their way, there'd be anarchy and poverty everywhere.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-14 10:26:07 AM
"I expect some of the above above would have complained at the few who had the courage to quit the SS in WW2 and other military machines gone wrong." Valentine M Smith
Comparing the U.S, military to the SS now. And you wonder why no one takes you moonbats seriously! Pass the dope...
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-09-14 4:06:28 PM
Since I have been a businessman since January 1, 1971, a storeowner since 1975, employ 15 to 45 people always in that time (currently 30 employees), I think I have some insight into business success and orthodoxy.
My contracts with my employees and suppliers and all others have been honored, I've even paid all the income tax and all other taxes in that 33 years since 1975 when I turned 16).
I've been featured on the front page (with my portrait) of the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 5, 1995), in many pages in the Economist, for my business acumen and integrity. I've got a business resume superior to anyone who's ever come to this website, including the former publisher of WS, Mr. Levant.
Despite my run ins with government, I have never welched on a debt, never declared bankruptcy, and have never had any claim against me for unpaid debt.
Regarding the topic at hand;
The US army has killed 6 million civilians minimum in invasions, incursions, overthrows, since 1946, in Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others nations.
The Nazi SS killed murderously from 1933 to 1945, but at least we declared war on that evil and fought it.( and yes, my Dad served in the Royal Navy from 1939 to 1945 in Africa, Mediterranean, Palestine, the Suez). Now that the US is the worldwide murdering scourge, no one even has the temerity to even DISCUSS putting mild economic sanctions on the American bastards who are bloodlusting savages. In fact, guys like Zeb and Ike can't wait to get in sync with the American fascists and kill some more. The hate that seethes from Zeb, Shane Matthews, Markalta, and those sorry neo-con scum they admire is where they are at philosophically, and no amount of reason or objectivism can reclaim their sorry ass lost souls.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-09-14 4:59:58 PM
"Despite my run ins with government, I have never welched on a debt, never declared bankruptcy, and have never had any claim against me for unpaid debt."
Want a cookie or something? So have many other people. It doesn't excuse or forgive what you do.
The rest of that post is garbage. Back to my real work.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-14 5:09:42 PM
A REAL Libertarian realizes that the only ethical purpose for having a military is for territorial defence, and not for foreign invasion.
As a veteran of the Canadian Forces with two tours to Bosnia under my belt, I have two words for Dennis and Chuck: "Fuckin' A!"
It takes balls to stand up to an unethical government (redundant?). There is a cold beer waiting for both of these guys next time they're in Edmonton.
Posted by: Paul R. Welke | 2008-09-14 5:26:46 PM
Come on Zeb, don't you want to smoke some dope with him? That's what really bugs him about the U.S. isn't it? He's a pot head isn't he? That is his priority...never mind the fact that the U.S. is the greatest contributor to good in the world today. They are tough on drugs, which means that they must be evil fascists.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-09-14 5:29:27 PM
markalta: Emery is just bitter that he was caught.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-14 5:30:57 PM
"Regarding the topic at hand;
The US army has killed 6 million civilians minimum in invasions, incursions, overthrows, since 1946, in Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others nations."
Posted by some dope smoking libertarian, just proving the negative effects that too much dope can have on a persons thought processes. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, marc scott!
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-09-14 5:34:45 PM
markalta: it is distressing to see that historical knowledge has just become a laundry list of injustices. It's like nothing good ever happened in world history.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-14 5:37:01 PM
I always described my views as Libertarian, not because I was afraid to be labeled as Conservative (I am proud to wear this label too), but I thought that Libertarians are closer to what I deem a "true" freedom fighters - MY Freedom! But when I saw in local Metro daily a local Libertarian say: "I will be happy to steal votes from Conservatives so the Liberals might win!" I blew. Now this - these guys are not worthy of being called LIBERTARIANS. Cowardice, weasel-like behavior, lies - these were badges of honor of Liberals, now I see how the disease spreads...
Posted by: Phatmisiek | 2008-09-14 6:09:42 PM
I don't have quite as big a resume as Emery, but I have enough experience to know that no one goes that long without having to refuse to pay someone. I've had several oil companies welch on debts, refuse to honor contracts, and short me on invoices. After years of dealing with dishonest pricks like that, I'm not exactly above yanking the rug from under someone's feet.
I've never shorted an employee, but aside from that, everyone else is fair game.
The fact this "resister" had low risk for injury, and plenty of military experience, tells me he's neither a coward, nor a traitor. Whether we let him stay in Canada is another matter. I'd be willing to let him stay, but if it's not in the cards, I have no problem with that either.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-14 6:53:18 PM
Posted by some dope smoking libertarian, just proving the negative effects that too much dope can have on a persons thought processes. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, marc scott!
Posted by: Markalta | 14-Sep-08 5:34:45 PM
When you've got nothing relevant, start throwing insults I guess. What's your military experience Markalta?
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-14 6:53:29 PM
Phatmisiek,
As you can see from the comments above by the self proclaimed "libertarians", these are some pretty sick puppies.
Till the movement drops these sick bastards it is going nowhere.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-09-14 6:57:33 PM
"Now that the US is the worldwide murdering scourge."
From, Marc Scott Emery, our "courageous" pot-smoking "libertarian".
Can anyone who makes a claim like this be taken seriously?
Posted by: Craig | 2008-09-14 7:18:03 PM
When you've got nothing relevant, start throwing insults I guess. What's your military experience Markalta?
Posted by: JC | 14-Sep-08 6:53:29 PM
I didn't realize that the pot smoking libertarian known as marc scott emery was a vetaeran. Did military service become a prerequisite to having an opinion on this site?
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-09-14 8:34:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.