Tell Your State Legislatures and Governors the National Guard Is Not for Occupying Other People's Countries

I just spoke with a young Canadian of Quebec, the province, if you haven't heard or read of it, before now, last night (and "man" has this been a long night with screwy, say, problems with Windows XP Home Edition management, some really "funky" things happening with it, let's say). Anyway, this young Canadian, male, a little macho, short, about 5'8", which is my height, but of strong structure and rather massive biceps, though not like he spends much time body-building, just that he's a solid, say, structured individual and surely wouldn't be a fast runner; well, he stated (when talking to someone else while I was passing by) that he was interested in joining the CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) military police, which doesn't sound much, if any, better to me than joining the thug, hooligan, imperialist-serving, ... Canadian RCMP, but then he said he decided to not do that and to, instead, just enlist to be a "regular" soldier, or so they're called. The RCMP is [very] criminal and I don't expect much better from military police.

I asked the young fool if he realised that he was really enlisting to serve in the war on Afghanistan and if he also realised that this was never legitimate, that it was always criminal aggression (albeit aggression is always criminal), while adding that the "servants" of these extreme crimes deserve to stand on trial at a new Nuremberg Tribunal when they wittingly go against laws that are right and necessary. And I also mentioned some other lies about all of these 9-11-pretexted or -based wars the U.S. has been leading. His reply was a superficial, "Oh, yah, I read a little about" those things, but without CARING. Instead, he just spoke the standard line of stupidly believing his political and military leaders. So I told him that he should carefully [think] before enlisting to serve for anyone doing so does so in [disregard] of both national and international laws. After all, his country does not have a law that approves of criminally participating in supreme international crimes or being neo-Nazi.

He doesn't care and evidently thinks politicians and military leaders speak only truth. The supreme international mafia organisations, our gov'ts, speak truth? Since when does the Mafia, Cosa Nostra, go around informing the public about the organisation's doings? Wouldn't doing that be sort of counter-productive? "We're aiming to [screw] you and your families, for our profit!", they would say? I don't think that they're ready to be this honest, and our gov'ts are much worse; making the Cosa Nostra seem almost welcome; sort of.

All U.S. National Guard, by their constitution, charter, law, ... whatever, are to only serve in national problems, not international ones; although the only international problem the U.S. has is its criminal, gangster, imperialist, ... foreign policies and activities. The U.S. has no real international problems, except for its own gangster leadership. The NG should not be serving for these gangsters, and neither should the U.S. military, but the high-ranks of it consist of members who are extremely or wholly complicit. The NG should be removed from this and it's what the NG regulations prohibit, serving overseas.

Similarly, all gov'ts who are allies in all of the international criminality of the US "leadership" must respect and care for their populations and, therefore, refuse to be allies in these crimes.

The NG needs to pull out. It shouldn't be serving in any of these wars. I've also read that it's never to be used for international, or foreign service or orders, missions, whatever the right or better term is. But the war on Afghanistan, alone, was not authorised by the UNSC, which only provided two resolutions for police-like action for capturing and investigating or prosecuting Osama bin Laden, et al, for the 9-11 attacks; BUT there's also a peculiar, funny, say, side to this and it's that the U.S. still has not, to this day, April 5, 2010, laid any formal charges against OBL for the 9-11 attacks, because, as an FBI agent or official told an alert and questioning journalist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled that he was involved in these attacks. He denied complicity or responsibility, which some former counter-terrorism, or maybe they were not all of former status, said was extremely extraordinary, for real political or socio-political terrorists usually or always claim responsibility for their attacks. Otherwise, they would not be able to draw any immediate attention to their grievances that need to be justly resolved, the reasoning is. And that makes sense.

If you have a real grievance, or one you perceive anyway, and want it to be justly and really addressed, then you must identify yourself and your purpose. Otherwise, your actions remain mystery, say.

OBL denied responsibility in or for the 9-11 attacks, but some later U.S.-provided videos pretended that he reversed this denial. Well, it was clear that one or two, if not more, of those videos were not authentic and I read that some were old recordings of OBL well before 9-11, but also noticed that some were not him while the Bush Jr-Cheney administration and U.S. Establishment claimed that the person was him. In the latter cases, the person clearly enough was not OBL. And he originally denied responsibility and, from what I have also read, he was highly fluent in English and would not address the population of the U.S. in another language.

The Bush Jr-Cheney administration also pretended that the Taliban refuse to hand over OBL, but this was another and early falsehood, for they apparently offered to hand him over on three occassions, at least twice before the U.S. and NATO launched the war during the afternoon of Oct. 7, 2001; just that they had set a legitimate condition that the Bush Jr-Cheney admin. refused to comply with. What was this condition? They only demanded that sufficient preliminary proof of OBL's guilt in the 9-11 attacks be provided. It was a totally legitimate, ethical, ... condition. But the Bush Jr-Cheney admin. had [gangster] plans on their mind and clearly never did intend to go after OBL to begin with.

It reminds of the Clinton admin.'s war of totally criminal aggression on Kosovo, Yugoslavia, ... in 1999. First off, there was no sane way to ever support the threat of committing this action. The clearly gangster revision of the Rambouilet Accord cemented the fact that this military action, war, could never be justified in any ethical court of law.

The U.S. leadership is GANGSTERISM-International and the NG should be withdrawn; as well as all U.S. and allied soldiers being withdrawn. But since the NG's mandate is [national] service and not international, then they should enforce this mandate. State gov'ts should not allow their NG members to be [drafted] into foreign service. Volunteer service is another matter, but no required conscription for foreign service!

Many Canadians seem to like "playing neo-Nazi" while pretending they're innocent, but tens of thousands of U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have refused to return. Many are in hiding, and I don't know what good this can do them, because, f.e., how can they seek employment, how can they change their names so that they're untraceable, ...? I don't see what good it can really do to be in hiding, though understand their refusal to continue serving in either of these wars. However, there are also thousands who openly refuse to continue to serve in these wars.

I haven't heard or read of a single CAF soldier doing this, but maybe you have. There are some, however, who are reporting about their apparently severe PTSD conditions. CBC.ca has a documentary film, interview, with some CAF veterans of the war in Afghanistan and I haven't viewed this yet, but if CAF are suffering PTSD, then we should only imagine that the situation is much worse with U.S. veterans; I think or guess.

"Broken Heroes: They went off to war like heroes and returned with invisible wounds",

documetary of CBC's "The Fifth Estate", aired in 2009

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/broken_heroes

Again, I haven't viewed that film yet, but if it's really significant in terms of relating serious information about PTSD from serving in the war in Afghanistan for Canadian troops, then I think we better think very seriously about what U.S. veterans can or do suffer from. I don't know that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are in the worst situations, having read that the CAF, for some time anyway, was in the worst or one of the very worst areas, but the interviews with the CAF soldiers or vets in the above video should still be good information for us to KEEP IN MIND.

Imagine having been a member of the unit that raided a house in Afghanistan back in February and massacred an innocent man and a few women, including pregnant ones, this cold-blooded, horror, ... event. It takes an awfully cold-blooded soul to go through this and not seriously be psychologically affected. NATO grotesquely, hellishly lied about this event, and I haven't heard or read of any of the members of this military unit having broken silence, so they must be cold-blooded murders, psychopaths, the whole bunch; along with NATO command. They knew what the truth was all along and I haven't heard or read of any of them breaking silence; only having read that NATO command finally corrected its initially false claims.

These wars and many other foreign policies of the U.S. and led by the "leadership" of the U.S. are nothing short of extreme and cold-blooded psychopathy. There isn't a fictional horror film to match this horror!

Of course the NG needs to be withdrawn, and it should never be placed under conscription again for foreign matters. If any NG members want to enlist for foreign service, then it should only be on a volunteer basis; [only]. Respect the mandate or purpose, which is [national] service, only.

Withdraw all military and private "security" forces!

Mike Corbeil