Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
They're two separate failures stemming from two different parts of the military/government.
It's a shame you make people do all the legwork for you.
Self defense:
UN Charter, VIII, Article 41
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
|
It is exclusive of the use of force outside that context.
Quote:
Authorization:
UN Charter, VIII, Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures [not involving the use of force] provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
|
This act authorises the UN to take military action, it does not prohibit anyone else from doing so.
Quote:
|
Nowhere else in the UN Charter is military force allowed by any members.
|
Nor is it prohibited. The UN charter merely lays down the proceedures that the UN acts under when said conditions are met. The only relevent Article would be 33, which we indulged well beyond its scope in the ten years previous to the current war.
Quote:
|
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it incorrect.
|
Quoted for truth, try not to be so trite when you are wrong.
Quote:
|
Speaking of scared, someone is scared of standing up to the ape in the White House. Who might you ask? Everyone in the military but Watada and a few others.
|
I routinely stand up against the president, just not in an official capacity. That's because it would be the wrong thing to do in my position.
Quote:
|
You mean clean up the mess when they're caught? Yes, that's very responsible of them.
|
What would you prefer they do, not clean it up?
Quote:
|
Name calling is against TFP rules. I can take it on the chin once, but cut it out.
|
Earlier you said it was a compliment, wtf?
Quote:
|
Ah yes, the right to lie to 18 year olds who love playing SOCOM. Which amendment is that again?
|
You would call it the first amendment, but we have already discussed that that is not always an option for those serving. So we do our best to police the actions of individuals who stray from DoD policy.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Can you recall if your thought process operated as it does in the above example, BEFORE you served in the military?
I read that excerpt of your post, several times, and I am wondering where your way of thinking would position you in these two sets of circumstances. Would you be contributing to influences lessening the ordeal that these two men were put through, or increasing it?
|
Pretty much, the military has certainly changed me, but my basic thoughts are fairly similar to those before I joined.
I cannot say how honored I am to serve in the same Army as the men in the vignettes you provided. They had the moral courage to not only refuse an unlawful order, but also to put their personal safety at risk to try to rectify the situation. That is true courage. I would do my best to mitigate the lambasting they recieved if it was in my power to do so.
Just so you know, my comment about the oxymoron was linguistic not philosophical.