SkyDekker

Members
  • Content

    21,691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96
  • Feedback

    0%
  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. never said they would, so no need to get your knickers in a knot. The question remains, if a soldier would put forward that he believes the invasion is an illegal order and hence he decides not to follow it....what would happen? My example was an obvious, but what happens when it becomes not so obvious? Is it driven by public perception, as in, if a perceived majority of people agree with it, it is therefor a legal order? I have seen enough soldiers say that they will do what their CIC tells them to do. You chime in saying that the CIC would never order anything that isn't completely above board. I wish I could share that sentiment with you, but I don't. I generally don't trust the intentions of anybody in a very powerful position.
  2. Must be the same as those american whores who'll marry anybody for money, just so he can get a green card.
  3. my gun is definately bigger than your gun.
  4. Probably gave a bad example. But if some one truly has a major objection to the order given. As in this case where many international law experts have indicated that this war is illegal. What would happen if a soldier would claim it is an illegal order to go into Iraq?
  5. So, you find it perfectly normal that they would come out with a 9 paragraph report telling everybody that Pat was a hero and that he deserved a medal, yet fail to mention he got shot by one of his own? Even to his own family.
  6. If your CIC so orders, what makes that order any more illegal then the order to invade Iraq? Let's say that the women and children do have to fire first.
  7. So Ron, question for you. Let's say in your time in the military it was decided that Mexico needed to be invaded and only women and children were to be shot on sight. Would you have happily gone over and performed your "duty"?
  8. Never thought there was. I asked a question regarding your military, not a political party. I think this paragraph sums up my question: it certainly calls into questioin your statement of:
  9. So much for thinking for yourself.....
  10. Right, because in countries with stricter gun control everybody gets robbed on a daily basis. Furthermore, everybody ends up getting shot.
  11. Come on Quade, you should know better than that. Tuna doesn't answer questions. He only offers remarks, usually of the one line kind, usually trying to incite some kind of heated response. When he is proven wrong he just disappears and resurfaces in a different thread, starting all over again.
  12. I don't think there has been an official declaration of war, hence it would be somewhat debatable whether you are at war. Hence, it would not be a desertion at war time.
  13. That's quite funny coming from you. So, eventhough it would preterb you and you got all upset about an implication otherwise, you still think it is good to keep the death penalty, because sometimes the state kills the right person?
  14. I prefer to call it the better state.
  15. Yet they were pretty quick to assess that he deserved a medal. They quick to report he was killed in battle by opposing forces.
  16. How about the Canadian or Finnish school system?
  17. nice post. Unfortunate you had to end it with:
  18. His mom is asking why they lied to her and why it took them 5 weeks to come out with the truth. It didn't take them that long to get him a medal.
  19. That is quite possibly bigger bullshit than anything else written on SC. Since you are responding to the responses, by your own opinion it would indicate the weakness in your own position.
  20. I am surprised this hasn't been raised yet in SC. Why would the military have lied about the circumstances surrounding his death?
  21. So, you would be perfectly comfortable finding out an innocent man or woman had been killed by the state, because you got some satisfaction out of some of the other killings?
  22. I have to say I get quite a chuckle seeing Tuna and Ron and AggieDave agreeing with the ACLU.
  23. Obviously I don't know what teh law states in the UK. However, here in Canada, if the training hasn't been documented it is regarded as not having taken place. For example. Some of my staff have been lifting heavy items correctly for close to 18 years. This past summer one strained his back and claimed it came from lifting heavy items. This was the first such incident. We got fined by the Health & Safety authorities since we could not produce a piece of paper, signed by the employee, that he had been trained in proper lifting techniques. Eventhough the employee admitted that he had been trained, since it wasn't documented and signed by employee it was considered as never to have taken place. Hence, at least here, the argument of him being experienced would not hold any water.