Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
And we have yet to see examples of this. What exactly does the military promise that it can't or won't provide? Certainly not college money, they give that away like it was air. Promise of non-deployablity, it's put into hundreds of contracts a day. What again was your point?
|
I guess you're not familiar with the extent to which the veterans health care program is broken. Apparently you're unaware of forms that go unprocessed for years. You're probably also unaware that many disabled veterans don't get military retirement and VA compensation. Jeez, don't even get me started on wounded veterans.
Why aren't you familiar with any of this? It seems odd to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Pardon my ignorance, but I see nothing above that makes his individual orders a violation of the charter (which binds nations, not individuals).
|
I'll clarify. Under the UN Charter there are two circumstances in which the use of military force by a signatory is allowable:
1) If they are in danger of an imminent armed attack
2) When the Security Council has specifically allowed said force
We were in no danger, imminent or otherwise from Iraq and the US has to drop our proposal to the UN because it was clear the Security Council was going to vote no. If you want further information on that proposal (which was called either "eighteenth resolution" or "second resolution"), I'm sure the information is readily available.
And before you go on about how the current Iraq War is covered under the resolutions (such as 1441, 660, etc.) that were applicable for the Gulf War, don't bother. First off, the US wouldn't have proposed new resolutions for the invasion if the old ones applied and second the UN officially condemned the invasion. For each individual military action there must legally be UN Security Council approval. There was none for "Iraq Freedom" or "Enduring Freedom".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
That is your problem as much as mine.
|
It's not my problem that I proved your statement wrong. It's simply what happened.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Apparently not.
|
I'll let this go in the interest of avoiding further threadjack.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Because we are so close minded and simple in the military, right? And assuming you sweep me out of my servile, ignorant fog, what would you, willravel, have me do? Plant rainbows, sprinkle fairy dust on recruiting offices, or conduct a hasty attack on Crawford, Texas?
|
Do what you're legally obliged to do if you want. Combine the information above about the UN Charter with the fact that you are legally obliged to disobey illegal orders and you've got.... well Watada, actually.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Legalese wins again. OJ was not guilty, too. He is history as far as the Army is concerned, and good riddance. We really don't need any more non-hackers, especially now.
|
And I suppose soldiers who refuse to open fire on unarmed civilians are non-hackers, too? How about soldiers that are asked to torture and refuse? More non-hackers? Do you really want a standing army of non-thinkers? Robots who simply do what they're told no matter what their conscience tells them?
BTW, the military judge is in deep shit because his courtroom was a fucking joke. He fucked up. It has nothing to do with legalese and everything to do with justice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
As I stated before, the UCMJ is enforced, that's why those recruiters were removed.
|
Read the following article carefully.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626032
Are you really going to tell me this is uncommon?