GQ_jumper 4 #26 August 30, 2006 Matt's right, you made absolutely no point or argument with this post. how bout we try it again!History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #27 August 30, 2006 QuoteI also agree - making the stand he took would have taken perhaps more courage than simply and dumbly complying with orders and going out to Iraq.Quote If he's still a luitenant than chances are the Iraq war kicked off before he recieved his commission, therefore he had his chance to quit before he became an officer. He wanted to come into the military to defend his country/fight wars, and now he is backing down on the grounds that the war is illegal. You very well have the right to refuse an unlawful order ie "kill everyone in the house including women and children", according to the Geneva convention and US military regulation you are accountable for your own actions in that situation and may therefore refuse. But refusing to go to Iraq, that is not an unlawful order by any means, many people consider it an illegal war, well guess what, congress approved it, so basically everyone saying this war is illegal is at the same time accusing every soldier that has served there a war criminal. This luitenant is the criminal, nowhere in any oath you take while entering military service do you say you will obey all orders as you see fit. Simply put, this officer is a COWARD, a worthless, pathetic, sorry excuse for a soldier and in the eyes of those of us who live up to our committments the lowest form of life on Earth. People like this cause soldiers to get killed, their actions and negative impact on moral is causing more and more of my borthers in arms to come home in body bags. He should be forced to pay back everything the government WASTED to train him, then improsoned in a deep dark hole where he can be periodically ass-raped until he finally dies a slow painful death and finds his way to hell where his sorry ass can wait for me to get there and have a little chat with him. I despise cowards with every fiber of my being and wish the military would quit trying to deal with these people in a politically correct manner and crush them, they deserve nothing less, you can very well be charged with and punished for acts of cowardice in combat, we need to use that charge a lot more than we do. Excuse my graphic way of describing what I consider to be punishment, but I have served alongside men like this and they negatively impact our efforts over there and cause casualties. And if there's one thing in this world that can set me off this thread found it. You suffering from PMT? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #28 August 31, 2006 You suffering from PMT? Quote PMT? would you be referring to PTSD or is there something else along those lines I'm unaware of?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #29 August 31, 2006 I would say yes we are in regards to PTSD, how could you not after 4 trips to a combat zone? To what degree I do not know. But I still see no point in the previous link after link posts.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #30 August 31, 2006 nah I'm pretty sure I don't suffer from PTSD, hell I wish I were back in Iraq already but unfortunately I have to wait until this winter before I can go play again. But according to the poster who asked that anyone who thinks about war and gets angry is obviously psycho and suffering from PTSD or some sort of mental disorder, or would it be more along the lines of everyone who has been to combat is just a dangerous psycho? Either way, I was trying to make a point in my original post that there is no room for cowards in MY military, yes that's right, MY military. I've dedicated too much of my life to serving it to watch it be brought down by worthless pukes that can't live up to their committments. I have served next to cowards on the battlefield and served under their command as well and all they do is undermine our efforts to bring this war to an end.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #31 September 1, 2006 Quotethe Officer Violating the Oath he took (to the President, County and Unit and its officers who are appointed over him) and abandoning the men and women he was leading as they headed to the plane to Iraq? "I, (state your name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God. " Just so you know, an officer does not swear allegiance to most of what you mentioned.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #32 September 1, 2006 I do not have a copy, but what about the comissioning papers? and the Articles of the UCMJ? Or are your saying Officers are special and ONLY the Enlisted swear allegiance to those appointed over them?An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #33 September 1, 2006 QuoteOr are your saying Officers are special and ONLY the Enlisted swear allegiance to those appointed over them? Yes, officers are special. It helps prevent coups since, according to the oath, our loyalty is bound to the constitution. A general wanting to pull a third-world style takeover of the government would, in theory, have the entire officer corps in opposition to his actions. It's worked so far.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #34 September 1, 2006 QuoteYou suffering from PMT? Quote PMT? would you be referring to PTSD or is there something else along those lines I'm unaware of? Something else; Pre Menstrual Tension. I suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #35 September 1, 2006 I suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look badHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #36 September 1, 2006 You've missed my point entirely. I couldn't care less about the Lt. In fact, it's one less wanker I too will thankfully never come across on operations. Think Mcfly, think! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #37 September 1, 2006 QuoteI suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look bad Relax young trooper, you guys are on the same side, really you are, I know it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #38 September 1, 2006 his action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #39 September 2, 2006 Quotehis action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves. excuse me but 40k troops is TWO ENTIRE DIVISIONS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #40 September 2, 2006 that's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 September 2, 2006 Quotethat's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.com *raises the BULLSHIT FLAG on that one....*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #42 September 5, 2006 Is it "fact" because you say it is? Or is it "fact" because as a conspiracy theorist you take the Governments denial as proof? Two WHOLE DIVISIONS of an Army would make any and all National News services (and be spun be all sides as to why). Just looking around at a few reports and I am only coming up with around 200 deserters including all 4 services, active and reserve, I am sure it is a little higher as the reports aren't up to date but it is a bit off the 40,000 mark.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #43 September 5, 2006 there is no conspiracy, there is no theory. just the agenda for world socialism. www.freedomtofacsism.com www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #44 September 5, 2006 And yet again you avoid the question. Can you PROVE there are 40,000, or more, deserters from the US military over the war in Iraq , or is it hard since it isn't so? Is it just a conspiracy theory? How about this I am a reasonable person, I'll give you a reasonable goal, prove 4,000 have deserted and I will consider your conspiracy "proven".An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #45 September 5, 2006 the number is irrelleveant, the fact WAR IS WRONG. as woodrow wilson said, Once lead the people into war, they will forever forget such a thing as tolerance. Or nietzche: Everything the State says is a lie. www.hermes-press.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #46 September 5, 2006 Quotethe number is irrelleveantNo, the number is not irrelevant. Because that number can give strength to the argument, and if that number is wrong, then the argument doesn't stand up. An assertion is not enough to prove a point generally. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #47 September 5, 2006 While for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #48 September 6, 2006 QuoteWhile for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit. In your opinion. The officer (as well as NCOs and enlisted) should evaluate whether orders they are given are legal orders per the UCMJ. If the order is illegal, then it is not to be obeyed - but the last time I looked, there's not enough wiggle room for movement orders to be illegal. He's grandstanding and trying to make a "statement". The only thing it's gonna earn his is the Big Chicken Dinner and a boot in the ass out the door.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
GQ_jumper 4 #28 August 31, 2006 You suffering from PMT? Quote PMT? would you be referring to PTSD or is there something else along those lines I'm unaware of?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #29 August 31, 2006 I would say yes we are in regards to PTSD, how could you not after 4 trips to a combat zone? To what degree I do not know. But I still see no point in the previous link after link posts.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #30 August 31, 2006 nah I'm pretty sure I don't suffer from PTSD, hell I wish I were back in Iraq already but unfortunately I have to wait until this winter before I can go play again. But according to the poster who asked that anyone who thinks about war and gets angry is obviously psycho and suffering from PTSD or some sort of mental disorder, or would it be more along the lines of everyone who has been to combat is just a dangerous psycho? Either way, I was trying to make a point in my original post that there is no room for cowards in MY military, yes that's right, MY military. I've dedicated too much of my life to serving it to watch it be brought down by worthless pukes that can't live up to their committments. I have served next to cowards on the battlefield and served under their command as well and all they do is undermine our efforts to bring this war to an end.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #31 September 1, 2006 Quotethe Officer Violating the Oath he took (to the President, County and Unit and its officers who are appointed over him) and abandoning the men and women he was leading as they headed to the plane to Iraq? "I, (state your name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God. " Just so you know, an officer does not swear allegiance to most of what you mentioned.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #32 September 1, 2006 I do not have a copy, but what about the comissioning papers? and the Articles of the UCMJ? Or are your saying Officers are special and ONLY the Enlisted swear allegiance to those appointed over them?An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #33 September 1, 2006 QuoteOr are your saying Officers are special and ONLY the Enlisted swear allegiance to those appointed over them? Yes, officers are special. It helps prevent coups since, according to the oath, our loyalty is bound to the constitution. A general wanting to pull a third-world style takeover of the government would, in theory, have the entire officer corps in opposition to his actions. It's worked so far.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #34 September 1, 2006 QuoteYou suffering from PMT? Quote PMT? would you be referring to PTSD or is there something else along those lines I'm unaware of? Something else; Pre Menstrual Tension. I suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #35 September 1, 2006 I suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look badHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #36 September 1, 2006 You've missed my point entirely. I couldn't care less about the Lt. In fact, it's one less wanker I too will thankfully never come across on operations. Think Mcfly, think! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #37 September 1, 2006 QuoteI suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look bad Relax young trooper, you guys are on the same side, really you are, I know it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #38 September 1, 2006 his action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #39 September 2, 2006 Quotehis action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves. excuse me but 40k troops is TWO ENTIRE DIVISIONS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #40 September 2, 2006 that's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 September 2, 2006 Quotethat's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.com *raises the BULLSHIT FLAG on that one....*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #42 September 5, 2006 Is it "fact" because you say it is? Or is it "fact" because as a conspiracy theorist you take the Governments denial as proof? Two WHOLE DIVISIONS of an Army would make any and all National News services (and be spun be all sides as to why). Just looking around at a few reports and I am only coming up with around 200 deserters including all 4 services, active and reserve, I am sure it is a little higher as the reports aren't up to date but it is a bit off the 40,000 mark.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #43 September 5, 2006 there is no conspiracy, there is no theory. just the agenda for world socialism. www.freedomtofacsism.com www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #44 September 5, 2006 And yet again you avoid the question. Can you PROVE there are 40,000, or more, deserters from the US military over the war in Iraq , or is it hard since it isn't so? Is it just a conspiracy theory? How about this I am a reasonable person, I'll give you a reasonable goal, prove 4,000 have deserted and I will consider your conspiracy "proven".An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #45 September 5, 2006 the number is irrelleveant, the fact WAR IS WRONG. as woodrow wilson said, Once lead the people into war, they will forever forget such a thing as tolerance. Or nietzche: Everything the State says is a lie. www.hermes-press.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #46 September 5, 2006 Quotethe number is irrelleveantNo, the number is not irrelevant. Because that number can give strength to the argument, and if that number is wrong, then the argument doesn't stand up. An assertion is not enough to prove a point generally. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #47 September 5, 2006 While for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #48 September 6, 2006 QuoteWhile for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit. In your opinion. The officer (as well as NCOs and enlisted) should evaluate whether orders they are given are legal orders per the UCMJ. If the order is illegal, then it is not to be obeyed - but the last time I looked, there's not enough wiggle room for movement orders to be illegal. He's grandstanding and trying to make a "statement". The only thing it's gonna earn his is the Big Chicken Dinner and a boot in the ass out the door.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
matthewcline 0 #29 August 31, 2006 I would say yes we are in regards to PTSD, how could you not after 4 trips to a combat zone? To what degree I do not know. But I still see no point in the previous link after link posts.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #30 August 31, 2006 nah I'm pretty sure I don't suffer from PTSD, hell I wish I were back in Iraq already but unfortunately I have to wait until this winter before I can go play again. But according to the poster who asked that anyone who thinks about war and gets angry is obviously psycho and suffering from PTSD or some sort of mental disorder, or would it be more along the lines of everyone who has been to combat is just a dangerous psycho? Either way, I was trying to make a point in my original post that there is no room for cowards in MY military, yes that's right, MY military. I've dedicated too much of my life to serving it to watch it be brought down by worthless pukes that can't live up to their committments. I have served next to cowards on the battlefield and served under their command as well and all they do is undermine our efforts to bring this war to an end.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #31 September 1, 2006 Quotethe Officer Violating the Oath he took (to the President, County and Unit and its officers who are appointed over him) and abandoning the men and women he was leading as they headed to the plane to Iraq? "I, (state your name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God. " Just so you know, an officer does not swear allegiance to most of what you mentioned.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #32 September 1, 2006 I do not have a copy, but what about the comissioning papers? and the Articles of the UCMJ? Or are your saying Officers are special and ONLY the Enlisted swear allegiance to those appointed over them?An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #33 September 1, 2006 QuoteOr are your saying Officers are special and ONLY the Enlisted swear allegiance to those appointed over them? Yes, officers are special. It helps prevent coups since, according to the oath, our loyalty is bound to the constitution. A general wanting to pull a third-world style takeover of the government would, in theory, have the entire officer corps in opposition to his actions. It's worked so far.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #34 September 1, 2006 QuoteYou suffering from PMT? Quote PMT? would you be referring to PTSD or is there something else along those lines I'm unaware of? Something else; Pre Menstrual Tension. I suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #35 September 1, 2006 I suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look badHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #36 September 1, 2006 You've missed my point entirely. I couldn't care less about the Lt. In fact, it's one less wanker I too will thankfully never come across on operations. Think Mcfly, think! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #37 September 1, 2006 QuoteI suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look bad Relax young trooper, you guys are on the same side, really you are, I know it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #38 September 1, 2006 his action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #39 September 2, 2006 Quotehis action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves. excuse me but 40k troops is TWO ENTIRE DIVISIONS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #40 September 2, 2006 that's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 September 2, 2006 Quotethat's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.com *raises the BULLSHIT FLAG on that one....*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #42 September 5, 2006 Is it "fact" because you say it is? Or is it "fact" because as a conspiracy theorist you take the Governments denial as proof? Two WHOLE DIVISIONS of an Army would make any and all National News services (and be spun be all sides as to why). Just looking around at a few reports and I am only coming up with around 200 deserters including all 4 services, active and reserve, I am sure it is a little higher as the reports aren't up to date but it is a bit off the 40,000 mark.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #43 September 5, 2006 there is no conspiracy, there is no theory. just the agenda for world socialism. www.freedomtofacsism.com www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #44 September 5, 2006 And yet again you avoid the question. Can you PROVE there are 40,000, or more, deserters from the US military over the war in Iraq , or is it hard since it isn't so? Is it just a conspiracy theory? How about this I am a reasonable person, I'll give you a reasonable goal, prove 4,000 have deserted and I will consider your conspiracy "proven".An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #45 September 5, 2006 the number is irrelleveant, the fact WAR IS WRONG. as woodrow wilson said, Once lead the people into war, they will forever forget such a thing as tolerance. Or nietzche: Everything the State says is a lie. www.hermes-press.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #46 September 5, 2006 Quotethe number is irrelleveantNo, the number is not irrelevant. Because that number can give strength to the argument, and if that number is wrong, then the argument doesn't stand up. An assertion is not enough to prove a point generally. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #47 September 5, 2006 While for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #48 September 6, 2006 QuoteWhile for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit. In your opinion. The officer (as well as NCOs and enlisted) should evaluate whether orders they are given are legal orders per the UCMJ. If the order is illegal, then it is not to be obeyed - but the last time I looked, there's not enough wiggle room for movement orders to be illegal. He's grandstanding and trying to make a "statement". The only thing it's gonna earn his is the Big Chicken Dinner and a boot in the ass out the door.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GQ_jumper 4 #35 September 1, 2006 I suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look badHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #36 September 1, 2006 You've missed my point entirely. I couldn't care less about the Lt. In fact, it's one less wanker I too will thankfully never come across on operations. Think Mcfly, think! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #37 September 1, 2006 QuoteI suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look bad Relax young trooper, you guys are on the same side, really you are, I know it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #38 September 1, 2006 his action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #39 September 2, 2006 Quotehis action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves. excuse me but 40k troops is TWO ENTIRE DIVISIONS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #40 September 2, 2006 that's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 September 2, 2006 Quotethat's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.com *raises the BULLSHIT FLAG on that one....*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #42 September 5, 2006 Is it "fact" because you say it is? Or is it "fact" because as a conspiracy theorist you take the Governments denial as proof? Two WHOLE DIVISIONS of an Army would make any and all National News services (and be spun be all sides as to why). Just looking around at a few reports and I am only coming up with around 200 deserters including all 4 services, active and reserve, I am sure it is a little higher as the reports aren't up to date but it is a bit off the 40,000 mark.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #43 September 5, 2006 there is no conspiracy, there is no theory. just the agenda for world socialism. www.freedomtofacsism.com www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #44 September 5, 2006 And yet again you avoid the question. Can you PROVE there are 40,000, or more, deserters from the US military over the war in Iraq , or is it hard since it isn't so? Is it just a conspiracy theory? How about this I am a reasonable person, I'll give you a reasonable goal, prove 4,000 have deserted and I will consider your conspiracy "proven".An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #45 September 5, 2006 the number is irrelleveant, the fact WAR IS WRONG. as woodrow wilson said, Once lead the people into war, they will forever forget such a thing as tolerance. Or nietzche: Everything the State says is a lie. www.hermes-press.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #46 September 5, 2006 Quotethe number is irrelleveantNo, the number is not irrelevant. Because that number can give strength to the argument, and if that number is wrong, then the argument doesn't stand up. An assertion is not enough to prove a point generally. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #47 September 5, 2006 While for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #48 September 6, 2006 QuoteWhile for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit. In your opinion. The officer (as well as NCOs and enlisted) should evaluate whether orders they are given are legal orders per the UCMJ. If the order is illegal, then it is not to be obeyed - but the last time I looked, there's not enough wiggle room for movement orders to be illegal. He's grandstanding and trying to make a "statement". The only thing it's gonna earn his is the Big Chicken Dinner and a boot in the ass out the door.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
vortexring 0 #36 September 1, 2006 You've missed my point entirely. I couldn't care less about the Lt. In fact, it's one less wanker I too will thankfully never come across on operations. Think Mcfly, think! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #37 September 1, 2006 QuoteI suppose it's a bit of a smart arsey and perhaps even disrespectful question, but for some reason your thread prior to my comment made me feel this way. Quote you're absolutely right I should apologize to that officer and welcome him into my ranks even though he is a pathetic excuse of a service member and makes the rest of us look bad Relax young trooper, you guys are on the same side, really you are, I know it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #38 September 1, 2006 his action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #39 September 2, 2006 Quotehis action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves. excuse me but 40k troops is TWO ENTIRE DIVISIONS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #40 September 2, 2006 that's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 September 2, 2006 Quotethat's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.com *raises the BULLSHIT FLAG on that one....*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #42 September 5, 2006 Is it "fact" because you say it is? Or is it "fact" because as a conspiracy theorist you take the Governments denial as proof? Two WHOLE DIVISIONS of an Army would make any and all National News services (and be spun be all sides as to why). Just looking around at a few reports and I am only coming up with around 200 deserters including all 4 services, active and reserve, I am sure it is a little higher as the reports aren't up to date but it is a bit off the 40,000 mark.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #43 September 5, 2006 there is no conspiracy, there is no theory. just the agenda for world socialism. www.freedomtofacsism.com www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #44 September 5, 2006 And yet again you avoid the question. Can you PROVE there are 40,000, or more, deserters from the US military over the war in Iraq , or is it hard since it isn't so? Is it just a conspiracy theory? How about this I am a reasonable person, I'll give you a reasonable goal, prove 4,000 have deserted and I will consider your conspiracy "proven".An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #45 September 5, 2006 the number is irrelleveant, the fact WAR IS WRONG. as woodrow wilson said, Once lead the people into war, they will forever forget such a thing as tolerance. Or nietzche: Everything the State says is a lie. www.hermes-press.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #46 September 5, 2006 Quotethe number is irrelleveantNo, the number is not irrelevant. Because that number can give strength to the argument, and if that number is wrong, then the argument doesn't stand up. An assertion is not enough to prove a point generally. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #47 September 5, 2006 While for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #48 September 6, 2006 QuoteWhile for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit. In your opinion. The officer (as well as NCOs and enlisted) should evaluate whether orders they are given are legal orders per the UCMJ. If the order is illegal, then it is not to be obeyed - but the last time I looked, there's not enough wiggle room for movement orders to be illegal. He's grandstanding and trying to make a "statement". The only thing it's gonna earn his is the Big Chicken Dinner and a boot in the ass out the door.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
hairyjuan 0 #38 September 1, 2006 his action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #39 September 2, 2006 Quotehis action is backed up by the 40,000 who deserted, which YOUR socialist propaganda machine refuses to tell us about. the truth is out there all you have to do is wake up from YOUR somnambulistic dream state to see it for yourselves. excuse me but 40k troops is TWO ENTIRE DIVISIONS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #40 September 2, 2006 that's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 September 2, 2006 Quotethat's right and it is a fact www.addictedtowar.com *raises the BULLSHIT FLAG on that one....*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #42 September 5, 2006 Is it "fact" because you say it is? Or is it "fact" because as a conspiracy theorist you take the Governments denial as proof? Two WHOLE DIVISIONS of an Army would make any and all National News services (and be spun be all sides as to why). Just looking around at a few reports and I am only coming up with around 200 deserters including all 4 services, active and reserve, I am sure it is a little higher as the reports aren't up to date but it is a bit off the 40,000 mark.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #43 September 5, 2006 there is no conspiracy, there is no theory. just the agenda for world socialism. www.freedomtofacsism.com www.addictedtowar.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #44 September 5, 2006 And yet again you avoid the question. Can you PROVE there are 40,000, or more, deserters from the US military over the war in Iraq , or is it hard since it isn't so? Is it just a conspiracy theory? How about this I am a reasonable person, I'll give you a reasonable goal, prove 4,000 have deserted and I will consider your conspiracy "proven".An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #45 September 5, 2006 the number is irrelleveant, the fact WAR IS WRONG. as woodrow wilson said, Once lead the people into war, they will forever forget such a thing as tolerance. Or nietzche: Everything the State says is a lie. www.hermes-press.comwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #46 September 5, 2006 Quotethe number is irrelleveantNo, the number is not irrelevant. Because that number can give strength to the argument, and if that number is wrong, then the argument doesn't stand up. An assertion is not enough to prove a point generally. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #47 September 5, 2006 While for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 September 6, 2006 QuoteWhile for once we agree on this case and the 'Soldier' involved this... QuoteKeith agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate an order for legal sufficiency, but believed it would be "very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so)… Is bullshit. In your opinion. The officer (as well as NCOs and enlisted) should evaluate whether orders they are given are legal orders per the UCMJ. If the order is illegal, then it is not to be obeyed - but the last time I looked, there's not enough wiggle room for movement orders to be illegal. He's grandstanding and trying to make a "statement". The only thing it's gonna earn his is the Big Chicken Dinner and a boot in the ass out the door.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
