Friday, May 05, 2006

Conscience of convenience for Jack!

Babble on.

Why is someone who bails out of the consequences of their own choices to be applauded, Jack, you asinine popinjay?

American deserters dodging military duty in Iraq share Canadian values and should be welcomed in this country, NDP Leader Jack Layton says.

"It makes a lot of sense to welcome these young people, recognize that they've taken a position that's exactly the same position that Canadians took," he said yesterday. "It would be inappropriate to send them back in my view ... We're glad they've chosen our country."

Layton urged the Conservative government to grant sanctuary to young soldiers, noting Canada became a safe haven for Americans seeking to avoid the Vietnam draft more than 30 years ago.

"We should be looking at it," he said. "These young people are courageous individuals. They've made a decision of conscience."

What did you say? "Conscience?" You're a little late to the party there, aren't you?

I mean, ask Bev Desjarlais what following your conscience gets you in the Jack Layton NDP.

Actions have consequences, and so they should. You join the military - no draft these days, mind you, it's voluntary service - and you agree to follow the legal orders of those appointed above you. If you can't do that for reasons of conscience, you suck it up and take your licks. You go to jail for a while and get your dishonourable discharge, and then get on with the rest of your life. You don't run away and hope Canada takes your sorry ass in.

If Jack! was a leader with any real convictions whatsoever, he would start encouraging people to stand up for their anti-war beliefs, not to run away from the consequences of those beliefs. Unfortunately, he's nothing more than a pontificating, self-absorbed glutton for attention.

Babble off.


At 2:53 p.m., Blogger Serenity Now! said...

It is disgusting that people who WILLINGLY joined the ARMY are running away because... gasp ... they might have to go to war instead of ... oh, knitting beanies for babies, or whatever they thought they might be called to do.

Perhaps when these college kids sign up in the Army to get money for college, the Army should make them sign a waiver that says "I understand I am joining the ARMY and may be called into service whether I like it or not. I understand that I'm not just getting an education for FREE."

And Jack Layton... he's just such an idiot. The only way that man knows what he stands for is if he can determine what the other parties are against... then he spends so much time politically 'vogue'-ing to ensure he's positioned properly that he doesn't actually know whose conscience he's supposed to be listening to.

At 4:56 p.m., Blogger lance said...

Hear, Hear!

Saw Cindy Sheehan on the news the other night claiming that she pleaded with her boy to go to Canada.

Oh goody, just the reputation we want.


At 5:00 p.m., Blogger Chris Taylor said...

The nice thing about Jack! is that he's a rather reliable foreign policy / national security bellwether.

You can't go very wrong by listening carefully to his defense/security policy pronouncements, and then supporting the exact opposite of them.

At 1:46 p.m., Blogger Dave said...

I can't believe that turd Jack! hijacking the Canadian Values line. Doesn't he know that the Liberals copyrighted that. Anyhooo.....I was listening to CFRA and the guy standing in for Lowell Green (can't remember his name) made a point that I've made before on blogs, but the media seems reluctant to take on board. These deserters do not, as a rule, quit months before a deployment. They quit with one or two weeks to go. So they have trained with their squad, become an integral part of a team and THEN decided to leave their buddies in the lurch. Each one of these selfish turds increases the workload and risk for other people. Not faceless, unknown soldiers; their own close friends. That, Mr Layton, may be what we can expect of socialist used car salesmen but it is NOT a Canadian value.

At 7:33 p.m., Blogger BBS said...

Now here's someone with the courage of their conviction. He was willing to face court martial and imprisonment. He didn't run away and hide.
British SAS officer

I may not agree with him, but I certainly respect his decision and how he carried it out.

It's interesting how all these American deserters seemed to develop a conscience just prior to being deployed.

At 11:23 a.m., Blogger Wil Cheung said...

I think it's a little more complex that this. If the recruiter tells the person that he will never have to fight or see war, guarantees him another position other than one that sees action, in an effort to sign you up, should the recruiter and therefore the Army be held legally liable for what was promised? Whether or not the soldiers were being naive is irrelevant, since anyone who decides to go in any career must deal with situations they never thought they would have to. However, the recruiters did lie in order to persuade these boys to sign up. They should be held to account for what they promised to these boys.

At 11:25 a.m., Blogger Wil Cheung said...

"shouldn't the recruiter"

At 11:47 a.m., Blogger Serenity Now! said...


Recruits sign a contract. A written on paper contract.

They can read. They are held to account when they sign their name.

Yes, if a recruiter promises something, it should be brought to the attention of that recruiter's higher-ups IMMEDIATELY. Not a year down the road when they are getting ready to deploy. That's a bit to convenient.

"Oh! You mean all this time I've been training to fire a gun... means I'll still have to fire it?? But the recruiter said..."

At 1:44 p.m., Blogger Sean McCormick said...

"Why is someone who bails out of the consequences of their own choices to be applauded, Jack, you asinine popinjay?"

It worked for the pro-choice folks, didn't it?

At 11:12 a.m., Blogger Dr. Dawg said...

Bev Desjarlais? Come on, now.

She voted against a key party plank. Was she removed from caucus? No. Was she merely stripped of her critic's portfolio? Yes.

Then her riding association (remember them? They actually get to vote on who will represent their party in elections) gave her the heave for being the homophobe she is.

Shouldn't the riding associations get to vote any more? What about their consciences? What if a Conservative stood up to vote against a key party plank? Should his or her riding association have no say in the matter when nomination day comes around?

Give me a break.

That was a cheap shot, Damian. I expected better of you.

At 11:39 a.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Dawg, you seem to be missing my point.

Desjarlais' actions - voting her conscience - had consequences. Jack understood that, her riding association understood that, and she was dealt with accordingly.

My problem isn't with the way the NDP treated Desjarlais - they had every right to kick her out for breaking their rules.

My problem is that Jack and his party seem to pick and choose which "matters of conscience" are worthwhile and which aren't. Deserters shouldn't have consequences attached to their actions, but Bev Desjarlais should?

I think that's ass backwards and I think it's hypocritical to boot, and that's why I'm calling Layton on it.

At 12:23 p.m., Blogger Dr. Dawg said...

I don't think I missed your point at all, unless you are arguing that all actions based upon conscience are equally valid.

Bev Desjarlais ran afoul of her riding association, the members of which may well have active consciences of their own. There is no equivalent between that situation and refusing to fight in an immoral war.

Conscience makes all kind of people do all kinds of things. Standing up to the state in the US takes real courage. Coming to Canada and thus abandoning home, friends and family takes courage as well. That kind of courage is to be admired, in my opinion.

Standing up for the trampling of human rights, on the other hand, doesn't make me feel much admiration. Perhaps it takes courage to gay-bait, but I don't really care, just as I don't care when a racist stands on conscience to argue against interracial marriage.

If you want Jack to be consistent, applauding anyone who acts on conscience, then he would end up being supremely inconsistent on matters of principle. Jack supports human rights, and he opposes immoral wars. That's the kind of consistency I, for one, prefer.

At 1:34 p.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Coming to Canada and thus abandoning home, friends and family takes courage as well.

We'll just have to disagree then, Dawg. I don't think deserting takes courage at all. I think standing in front of a court martial would take some courage, if one was determined to take a stand on moral grounds.

As far as the rest of your slurs are concerned, I've argued my positions on Iraq and SSM before, and I really don't feel like doing it again. Suffice to say your positions have been noted and given all the attention they're due by this blogger.

At 5:02 p.m., Blogger Liberal Fortunes said...

Jack needs to pick and choose his battles. This is not one that his base is all in favour of.

At 3:35 p.m., Blogger AwaWiYe said...

>If the recruiter tells the person that he will never have to fight or see war

That's like allowing yourself to be recruited as an "accountant" with assurances you'll never have to do any actual arithmetic on paper. How stupid do you expect us to assume people may be in spite of evidence that they can tie their own shoelaces?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home