NationStates Jolt Archive

*Once again we see the Bush administration enacting a spite driven campaign of character assassination and persecution based on someone who dares to criticize it--if this isnt a form of psych-ops terrorism I dont know what is

Military To Investigate Soldier in Fahrenheit 9/11
USA Today is reporting the Marine Corps has opened an inquiry to determine if Marine Lance Corporal Abdul Henderson should be disciplined for his appearance in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. In the film, Henderson said he would refuse to return to fight in Iraq. His unit is facing a possible autumn return to Iraq,

www.democracynow.org

*Once again we see the Bush administration enacting a spite driven campaign of character assassination and persecution based on someone who dares to criticize it--if this isnt a form of psych-ops terrorism I dont know what is

Military To Investigate Soldier in Fahrenheit 9/11
USA Today is reporting the Marine Corps has opened an inquiry to determine if Marine Lance Corporal Abdul Henderson should be disciplined for his appearance in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. In the film, Henderson said he would refuse to return to fight in Iraq. His unit is facing a possible autumn return to Iraq,

www.democracynow.org

It is against the UCMJ to support any cause while in uniform. Thank you, have a nice day.

*Once again we see the Bush administration enacting a spite driven campaign of character assassination and persecution based on someone who dares to criticize it--if this isnt a form of psych-ops terrorism I dont know what is

Military To Investigate Soldier in Fahrenheit 9/11
USA Today is reporting the Marine Corps has opened an inquiry to determine if Marine Lance Corporal Abdul Henderson should be disciplined for his appearance in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. In the film, Henderson said he would refuse to return to fight in Iraq. His unit is facing a possible autumn return to Iraq,

www.democracynow.org

Could you at least link to the actual story instead of the web site that it's on?

MKULTRA was a suspected psi-ops special forces unit, sorry for that random mumble.

That's sort of pathetic.

Could you at least link to the actual story instead of the web site that it's on?
sure--tell me what the url is and ill link it for you

It is against the UCMJ to support any cause while in uniform. Thank you, have a nice day.

Looks like this thread is over.

Is the soldier (sorry, Marine, I've made that mistake before), facing an inquiry for appearing in the movie with his stance, or is it becuase his unit is being called back to Iraq and he won't go.

*Once again we see the Bush administration enacting a spite driven campaign of character assassination and persecution based on someone who dares to criticize it--if this isnt a form of psych-ops terrorism I dont know what is

Military To Investigate Soldier in Fahrenheit 9/11
USA Today is reporting the Marine Corps has opened an inquiry to determine if Marine Lance Corporal Abdul Henderson should be disciplined for his appearance in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. In the film, Henderson said he would refuse to return to fight in Iraq. His unit is facing a possible autumn return to Iraq,

www.democracynow.org

Active duty military personnel can not give political interviews. Lame attempt at trying to give credibility to Moore.

It is against the UCMJ to support any cause while in uniform. Thank you, have a nice day.

For some reason that is sadly hilarious :( Am I the only one?

Is the soldier (sorry, Marine, I've made that mistake before), facing an inquiry for appearing in the movie with his stance, or is it becuase his unit is being called back to Iraq and he won't go.
both--but mostly hes being punished for criticizing Bush--this is an ugly pattern with this admininstration--anywon who speaks truth to power becomes a target for the GOP smear machine

It is against the UCMJ to support any cause while in uniform. Thank you, have a nice day.


Wrong.

It is against the UCMJ to suppoetr any cause that it tells you not to.

You ever heard of "Toys for Tots"?

Sponsored by the USMC.

Its definately a "cause".

Active duty military personnel can not give political interviews. Lame attempt at trying to give credibility to Moore.


Bull.

Or didnt you watch coverage of this last war?

sure--tell me what the url is and ill link it for you

Well, it's your phantom story, I was assuming you had the URL.

*Once again we see the Bush administration enacting a spite driven campaign of character assassination and persecution based on someone who dares to criticize it--if this isnt a form of psych-ops terrorism I dont know what is

Military To Investigate Soldier in Fahrenheit 9/11
USA Today is reporting the Marine Corps has opened an inquiry to determine if Marine Lance Corporal Abdul Henderson should be disciplined for his appearance in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. In the film, Henderson said he would refuse to return to fight in Iraq. His unit is facing a possible autumn return to Iraq,

www.democracynow.org
Doesnt surprise me at all. Just wait, if they cant find anything hanging him for, they'll enact a new law which enables them to do it. No doubt, the US is slowly becoming a SS country and the people having their voice taken away dont act until its too late. I predict a really great future for the US - Heil Bush!

cough Godwin's Law cough

Eh...that soldier was out of line anyway...

I may be completely against Bush and his way of going about Iraq, but that soldier signed up and pledged his duty to the country and to the president. It's kind of like slavery...except you get reperations...and he knew what he was getting into when he signed up. You don't sign up for the freaking USMC expecting not to go to war...even if Ralph Nader was president...

Eh...that soldier was out of line anyway...

Explain? The way I remember it was he went with Mr. Moore to try and recruit the children of Congressmen for the military.


I may be completely against Bush and [b]his way of going about Iraq,[b/] but that soldier signed up and pledged his duty to the country and to the president. It's kind of like slavery...except you get reperations...and he knew what he was getting into when he signed up.

First of all, by saying "his way of going about Iraq" I assume you mean that you would have been for the war had it been under NATO or with more European Allies... I say that's crap: a rotton war is rotton no matter how many allies you have, but the Democrats in this country don't seem to remember Clintons mad bombing campaighn in the Balkins, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Second, the Iraq war was an unlawful war because the US constitution does not authorize the US to conduct military operations or wage war unless there is a DIRECT threat to the nation!

You don't sign up for the freaking USMC expecting not to go to war...even if Ralph Nader was president...

No, you sign up for the USMC expecting to train for war -- you go in expecting there is good reason behind it if you ever have to use that training. What you don't expect is to become a tool for personal profits and political gain.

Actually no person in uniform is allowed to give any interview or public appearance while in uniform without permission from the public affairs office. The reason for this is that the military does not want anyone in uniform making the service in question look bad to the public. Military personnel are forbidden from taking part in political protests while in uniform. They may take part while wearing civilian clothes.

Obviously this Marine did not contact his public affairs office before making his appearance in the film. Had he done so I am sure permission would have been denied as he definitly made statements that are out of line. He should be brought up on charges under the UCMJ. He has violated article 92 at the very least. (Failure to obey order or regulation) in that he did not contact his Public Affairs Officer.

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I'm not sure which Marine this is. I do know that Michael Moore went to the Marines explaining that he was a journalist and wanted them to help him with his piece. He said that they didn't even bother questioning him since at that time all of the media was doing pro-military pieces, so he didn't have to say that he was doing this type of film.

I'm not sure which Marine this is. I do know that Michael Moore went to the Marines explaining that he was a journalist and wanted them to help him with his piece. He said that they didn't even bother questioning him since at that time all of the media was doing pro-military pieces, so he didn't have to say that he was doing this type of film.

I would be extremely surprised if the Marine Public Affairs office did not want to see a script or what the Marine would be saying in the movie. That they would not even question him would be the first time that ever happened. I would like to see an official link to that before I would believe it.

I would be extremely surprised if the Marine Public Affairs office did not want to see a script or what the Marine would be saying in the movie. That they would not even question him would be the first time that ever happened. I would like to see an official link to that before I would believe it.

That's what Michael Moore said, anyway. I have no way of knowing that he was telling the truth, I wasn't there.

both--but mostly hes being punished for criticizing Bush--this is an ugly pattern with this admininstration--anywon who speaks truth to power becomes a target for the GOP smear machine

And you know this because you read his mind via your telepathy or was it your crystal ball...I forget which?

That's what Michael Moore said, anyway. I have no way of knowing that he was telling the truth, I wasn't there.

I would SERIOUSLY doubt that Mr. Moore is telling the truth. It goes against EVERYTHING that the Public Affairs offices are there for. Remember, whenever military uniforms are seen in movies PROPERLY worn, permission has to be gotten from Public Affairs. Movies where permission was not given, the uniforms are not complete...missing name tags etc. The Marine in question was in full uniform, so I doubt that Mr. Moore did the right thing by that Marine, he just used him to make his point and now the Marine will pay the price.

I would SERIOUSLY doubt that Mr. Moore is telling the truth. It goes against EVERYTHING that the Public Affairs offices are there for. Remember, whenever military uniforms are seen in movies PROPERLY worn, permission has to be gotten from Public Affairs. Movies where permission was not given, the uniforms are not complete...missing name tags etc. The Marine in question was in full uniform, so I doubt that Mr. Moore did the right thing by that Marine, he just used him to make his point and now the Marine will pay the price.

Perhaps that's true, if so it's unfortunate.

Mr. Moore also used that poor woman whose son was killed in Iraq. First he gets her to say how patriotic her family is, how they have been military families and served through so many wars. Then she learns her son was killed and he gets her crying and asking "Why my son?" Mr. Moore used that ladies grief as well to make his point. Thats how he operates. Now this womans family will have to see her wailing and blaming everyone for her sons death. Would she have been in DC without Mr. Moore? I seriously doubt it. That scene was just so staged, with Moore popping in at the right time to ask "Who do you blame for your sons death?" then popping off camera just as quickly. Just so sad that people will allow themselves to be used like that. Now this Marine will pay a serious price for going along with that windbag.

Mr. Moore also used that poor woman whose son was killed in Iraq. First he gets her to say how patriotic her family is, how they have been military families and served through so many wars. Then she learns her son was killed and he gets her crying and asking "Why my son?" Mr. Moore used that ladies grief as well to make his point. Thats how he operates. Now this womans family will have to see her wailing and blaming everyone for her sons death. Would she have been in DC without Mr. Moore? I seriously doubt it. That scene was just so staged, with Moore popping in at the right time to ask "Who do you blame for your sons death?" then popping off camera just as quickly. Just so sad that people will allow themselves to be used like that. Now this Marine will pay a serious price for going along with that windbag.

I do agree, I don't care for many of his tactics, either.

both--but mostly hes being punished for criticizing Bush--this is an ugly pattern with this admininstration--anywon who speaks truth to power becomes a target for the GOP smear machine

He can't question the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. My dad hated Clinton but didn't say so publicly in or out of uniform because under Uniform Code of Military Justice, its illegal. Though he could if he was out of it.

Since this guy was in it and in uniform, it violates Regs and thus, he can be punished. Rules are Rules.

He can't question the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. My dad hated Clinton but didn't say so publicly in or out of uniform because under Uniform Code of Military Justice, its illegal.

Thats very true. I spent 20 years in the USAF and we were constantly being reminded not to speak ill of Clinton. The fact that he was extremely despised by the military had a lot to do with those reminders.

He can't question the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. My dad hated Clinton but didn't say so publicly in or out of uniform because under Uniform Code of Military Justice, its illegal.How can you argue that Bush can't be questioned because he's Commander in Chief, yet doesen't hold overall responsibility for actions of torture etc. It's surely either both or neither.

Thats very true. I spent 20 years in the USAF and we were constantly being reminded not to speak ill of Clinton. The fact that he was extremely despised by the military had a lot to do with those reminders.

Agreed! My dad is in the Army and they didn't like him much either and my uncle is in the USAF himself.

cough Godwin's Law cough
I don't think that that applies to threads about Bush on General.

How can you argue that Bush can't be questioned because he's Commander in Chief, yet doesen't hold overall responsibility for actions of torture etc. It's surely either both or neither.

If he is in uniform, which he was if I read this right, HE CAN'T question Bush. If he was out of uniform, that'll be a different story but since he was in Uniform, he violated US Military Regulations and thus can be punished.

For some reason that is sadly hilarious :( Am I the only one?

It is indeed sadly hillarious. Apparently when you protect the freedoms of your country, you don't have access to them.

It is indeed sadly hillarious. Apparently when you protect the freedoms of your country, you don't have access to them.

He was in Uniform Microevil. I dont know if you served but once you have that uniform on you cannot criticize the President of the United States.

It is indeed sadly hillarious. Apparently when you protect the freedoms of your country, you don't have access to them.

When in uniform you fall under a seperate set of rules. It HAS to be that way or the military would break down. Military service is a very different world and many people cannot adjust to it. The average civilian could not do it.

He was in Uniform Microevil. I dont know if you served but once you have that uniform on you cannot criticize the President of the United States.

It falls under the UCMJ because Bush is not just President, a civilian designation, he is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, a military designation...military jurisprudence prohibts disrespect to a senior officer, of which Bush is the most senior officer in the military. And we also have the disobedience of a direct order, to wit, the Marine had not complied with orders pursuant to wearing the uniform and appearing in an interview with Public Affairs authoriization

both--but mostly hes being punished for criticizing Bush--this is an ugly pattern with this admininstration--anywon who speaks truth to power becomes a target for the GOP smear machine
Smear machine? Oh yeah, thats right. Heres a joke:

Whats the difference between conservatives and liberals? Liberals think the opposite party is evil, Conservatives think the opposite party is stupid. Guess what I think?

Smear machine? Oh yeah, thats right. Heres a joke:

Whats the difference between conservatives and liberals? Liberals think the opposite party is evil, Conservatives think the opposite party is stupid. Guess what I think?

You forgot one, Independents think that both sides are stupid and whish they would both be put out of their misery.

Yes, in Vietnam we couldn't even talk to the press about what we thought of Nixon's bombing policies. Some guys who complained about Nixon to the press lost rank and leave, so most of us just kept quiet, until we were stateside and out of uniform.

*Once again we see the Bush administration enacting a spite driven campaign of character assassination and persecution based on someone who dares to criticize it--if this isnt a form of psych-ops terrorism I dont know what is

Military To Investigate Soldier in Fahrenheit 9/11
USA Today is reporting the Marine Corps has opened an inquiry to determine if Marine Lance Corporal Abdul Henderson should be disciplined for his appearance in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. In the film, Henderson said he would refuse to return to fight in Iraq. His unit is facing a possible autumn return to Iraq,

www.democracynow.org

Good for the bastard. It's a goddamned volunteer army. Don't want to go to war? Don't join!

Mr. Moore also used that poor woman whose son was killed in Iraq. First he gets her to say how patriotic her family is, how they have been military families and served through so many wars. Then she learns her son was killed and he gets her crying and asking "Why my son?" Mr. Moore used that ladies grief as well to make his point. Thats how he operates. Now this womans family will have to see her wailing and blaming everyone for her sons death. Would she have been in DC without Mr. Moore? I seriously doubt it. That scene was just so staged, with Moore popping in at the right time to ask "Who do you blame for your sons death?" then popping off camera just as quickly. Just so sad that people will allow themselves to be used like that. Now this Marine will pay a serious price for going along with that windbag.

Sorry, but you got this one wrong. The woman in question has appeared on radio shows and television several times since the movie was released to address that very issue you state. She has publicly stated many times that she was not used by Moore and has no problem whatsoever with how she is portrayed in the movie. She appeared on Al Franken's show to discuss all of this a week or so after the movie went public and was very clear with her newfound support for Moore's mission to oust Bush from office.

Mr. Moore also used that poor woman whose son was killed in Iraq. First he gets her to say how patriotic her family is, how they have been military families and served through so many wars. Then she learns her son was killed and he gets her crying and asking "Why my son?" Mr. Moore used that ladies grief as well to make his point. Thats how he operates. Now this womans family will have to see her wailing and blaming everyone for her sons death. Would she have been in DC without Mr. Moore? I seriously doubt it. That scene was just so staged, with Moore popping in at the right time to ask "Who do you blame for your sons death?" then popping off camera just as quickly. Just so sad that people will allow themselves to be used like that. Now this Marine will pay a serious price for going along with that windbag.
That is another major league asshole thing to say. He didn't use her greif to prove a point. The greif was the point. Kids are dying out there, and they have parents and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. That's his point, so how can showing the suffering caused to these people be manipulating anything? It's the fucking truth.

When in uniform you fall under a seperate set of rules. It HAS to be that way or the military would break down. Military service is a very different world and many people cannot adjust to it. The average civilian could not do it.
So (lets just zip back over to F9/11), if that's true, why were those marines recruiting people at the mall?

Explain? The way I remember it was he went with Mr. Moore to try and recruit the children of Congressmen for the military.

Which is stupid anyhow. You cannot send your children to the military. They sign up themselves.

Sorry, but you got this one wrong. The woman in question has appeared on radio shows and television several times since the movie was released to address that very issue you state. She has publicly stated many times that she was not used by Moore and has no problem whatsoever with how she is portrayed in the movie. She appeared on Al Franken's show to discuss all of this a week or so after the movie went public and was very clear with her newfound support for Moore's mission to oust Bush from office.

She can say what she likes....she was USED by Moore. The way he popped in and out of the picture to ask just the right question to get her crying even harder. She dishonored her son with that pathetic display. Again, would she have been in DC if not for Moore? I doubt it.

So (lets just zip back over to F9/11), if that's true, why were those marines recruiting people at the mall?

Haven't you ever seen recruiters at your high school? Tons of people go to malls...there's a good chance that they could get some people to sign up there. I fail to see the point that you're failing to make.

So (lets just zip back over to F9/11), if that's true, why were those marines recruiting people at the mall?

Because thats what they do. Recruiting is one thing, but you might be surprised at how many are weeded out in basic training. Recruiting is just the first step.

She dishonored her son with that pathetic display.

Who the hell are you to make that judgement?

She can say what she likes....she was USED by Moore. The way he popped in and out of the picture to ask just the right question to get her crying even harder. She dishonored her son with that pathetic display. Again, would she have been in DC if not for Moore? I doubt it.
Right, but she doesn't think that she was used by Moore... and I think she'd be the one to know, given that it is her opinions that he'd be misrepresenting if he were.

You don't actually give a shit about her or her son anyway, or what either of them believe in. You just don't like that she supports Moore.

She can say what she likes....she was USED by Moore. The way he popped in and out of the picture to ask just the right question to get her crying even harder. She dishonored her son with that pathetic display. Again, would she have been in DC if not for Moore? I doubt it.

Number 1, she was in DC for a conference. I seriously doubt Moore scheduled a conference for the US Department of Health.

Number 2, her grief does not dishonor her son in any such way, shape, or form. For you to say that only shows how little you understand such grief.

Number 3, she says she was not used by Moore. That you think otherwise is your opinion but that doesn't make it right. I'll go with what Mrs. Lipscomb says over what you say.

Number 4, if you watch the movie and pay attention, you'll see that Moore doesn't goad her pain one bit. She shares with him why she's upset. If anything, the only one that does goad her pain and crying is the Republican that tells her to blame al-Qaeda for her son's death....even though her son's death had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

If you're going to badmouth a movie, at least use rational thought to do it.

Haven't you ever seen recruiters at your high school? Tons of people go to malls...there's a good chance that they could get some people to sign up there. I fail to see the point that you're failing to make.
Well, no actually, they don't do that here. I'd knock over their fruit stand if they did.

If the average citizen can't hack the military as someone earlier said, then why were they trying to recruit pretty much damn near anyone at the mall?

That is another major league asshole thing to say. He didn't use her greif to prove a point. The greif was the point. Kids are dying out there, and they have parents and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. That's his point, so how can showing the suffering caused to these people be manipulating anything? It's the fucking truth.

Yes, men and women ARE dying....and Mr. Moore USED that womans grief to make an anti-war point.

Mr. Moore will distort anything to make his point. :rolleyes:

If he is in uniform, which he was if I read this right, HE CAN'T question Bush. If he was out of uniform, that'll be a different story but since he was in Uniform, he violated US Military Regulations and thus can be punished.You've missed my point. If Bush is the highest ranking military officer, as you state, then any crimes comitted are under his jurisdiction as well.

Well, no actually, they don't do that here. I'd knock over their fruit stand if they did.

If the average citizen can't hack the military as someone earlier said, then why were they trying to recruit pretty much damn near anyone at the mall?

I see...a tough guy.

Because they don't KNOW who can and can't hack it until they try. :rolleyes:

Well, no actually, they don't do that here. I'd knock over their fruit stand if they did.

If the average citizen can't hack the military as someone earlier said, then why were they trying to recruit pretty much damn near anyone at the mall?

As Biff Pileon said, they recruit everyone they can, and then basic training weeds out those who can take it from those who cannot.

Also, enough with the fruit stand shit. If you're not American, then you have no right to comment on US recruiting. If you are American, you should be ashamed. With out the USMC the world would be a much different, and much harsher place.

Right, but she doesn't think that she was used by Moore... and I think she'd be the one to know, given that it is her opinions that he'd be misrepresenting if he were.

You don't actually give a shit about her or her son anyway, or what either of them believe in. You just don't like that she supports Moore.

You are correct. I don't. But then again, neither do you...except that by using her you can gain a few points. :rolleyes:

You've missed my point. If Bush is the highest ranking military officer, as you state, then any crimes comitted are under his jurisdiction as well.

The Highest Ranking Military Officer, more commonly known as "Commander in Chief"...is more of an honorary title. It also keeps the military under the control of the President.

You've missed my point. If Bush is the highest ranking military officer, as you state, then any crimes comitted are under his jurisdiction as well.

Crimes? We are talking about a MARINE who was IN UNIFORM who CRITICIZED his Command-in-Chief. That is VIOLATING REGS!

As Biff Pileon said, they recruit everyone they can, and then basic training weeds out those who can take it from those who cannot. So why was it out of order for Moore and this soldier to attempt to recruit if that's not a political stance.

Also, enough with the fruit stand shit. If you're not American, then you have no right to comment on US recruiting. If you are American, you should be ashamed. With out the USMC the world would be a much different, and much harsher place.I'm not American. But then most people commenting on the Iraq war on here aren't Iraqis. And most people commenting on the Israel/Palestine situation aren't Israelis/Palestianians. Are you going to condemn them?

Crimes? We are talking about a MARINE who was IN UNIFORM who CRITICIZED his Command-in-Chief. That is VIOLATING REGS!

Oh god...I forgot about that. I sure hope The Holy Word was talking about prisoner abuse and not the soldier violating regs. So it's Bushes fault that someone went against the regs of the USMC? Doubt it.

I always appreciate a post by The Holy Word. Well thought out from perspectives some might never even consider. Kudos.

So why was it out of order for Moore and this soldier to attempt to recruit if that's not a political stance.
I'm not American. But then most people commenting on the Iraq war on here aren't Iraqis. And most people commenting on the Israel/Palestine situation aren't Israelis/Palestianians. Are you going to condemn them?

1. As I said, you cannot send your child to the army or send them to war. Him asking them to do so is him being a dumbass.

2. All I'm saying is that you if you don't understand how recruiting works (as you've shown) you should not continue to question it. Stephistan isn't American, yet she knows what she's talking about. I can't say the same for you.

You are correct. I don't. But then again, neither do you...except that by using her you can gain a few points. :rolleyes:
What do you think I'm scoring points for? My "liberal agenda"? To make me feel big about myself? I want to score points on the "keeping kids out of Iraq" issue. Why? So that they don't have to die, and so that their families don't have to grieve. Of course I care about that, that's the whole sodding point. It's not a game, you don't score points just because you want to win.

Also, enough with the fruit stand shit. If you're not American, then you have no right to comment on US recruiting. If you are American, you should be ashamed. With out the USMC the world would be a much different, and much harsher place.
Really? I have no right? Well I suppose that's true, we don't have instutionalised free speech over here in Britain. But unfortunately for your isolationist policy, it's not just the kids from your side of the pond who are dying in the desert, y-know? Do I have a moral right? Abso-fucking-lutely.

You are correct. I don't. But then again, neither do you...except that by using her you can gain a few points. :rolleyes:

Sorry actually not all of us are quite as heartless as you, over 900 brave men and women have died in that abomination of a war, and I feel great sorrow for them and their families because they died under false pretenses.

I see...a tough guy.
You don't think its true I imagine. I tell you though, nothing made me laugh more than seeing the British army van drive off after being harassed by a bunch of highschool kids from my school, armed with nothing more than a couple of slogans and some placards denouncing Bush.

As Biff Pileon said, they recruit everyone they can, and then basic training weeds out those who can take it from those who cannot.

Also, enough with the fruit stand shit. If you're not American, then you have no right to comment on US recruiting. If you are American, you should be ashamed. With out the USMC the world would be a much different, and much harsher place.
Just OOI, why should I be ashamed of myself?

Really? I have no right? Well I suppose that's true, we don't have instutionalised free speech over here in Britain. But unfortunately for your isolationist policy, it's not just the kids from your side of the pond who are dying in the desert, y-know? Do I have a moral right? Abso-fucking-lutely.

So you have a moral right to argue about....recruiting policies? You're shooting at shadows Spoffin. If you want to argue about kids dying for what you think is nothing, fine. Don't twist words and don't turn something small into something big. Why? Be-fucking-cause. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

1. As I said, you cannot send your child to the army or send them to war. Him asking them to do so is him being a dumbass.
They can't send their child into the army, they have little trouble sending other people's kids to war.

Sorry actually not all of us are quite as heartless as you, over 900 brave men and women have died in that abomination of a war, and I feel great sorrow for them and their families because they died under false pretenses.

Of course thats your opinion. This is one thing that is never going to have a consensus. However, those with no dog in the fight seem to be the loudest for some reason.

Yes, men and women ARE dying....and Mr. Moore USED that womans grief to make an anti-war point.

Mr. Moore will distort anything to make his point. :rolleyes:
How did he distort her? You think he digitally edited in the tears? The only person I see distorting anything about this woman and her greif is you.

Just OOI, why should I be ashamed of myself?

If you are American, you should be ashamed.

You've already said that you're not. Once again, something doesn't apply to you. Once again you're shooting at ghosts, simply trying to pick a fight that doesn't exist.

They can't send their child into the army, they have little trouble sending other people's kids to war.

As it is a VOLUNTEER military, noone is FORCED to go. However, if you are going to join, there is always a chance that you might have to go. I knew that when I joined and I spent 20 years booting around the world in various actions and deployments. Does ANYONE join the military without thinking of the possibility that they might have to go?

Of course thats your opinion. This is one thing that is never going to have a consensus. However, those with no dog in the fight seem to be the loudest for some reason.
I've read this five times, and I don't understand how that relates to the post you quoted. All it seems to do cast an indefinite doubt on whats been said, with no real cause to.

They can't send their child into the army, they have little trouble sending other people's kids to war.

How cute. Wonder how many liberals have spewed that vile? They're sending the army to war...not "other people's kids". Once again, if you don't want to go to war, don't join the military. It's that simple. Everyone knows it going in.

How did he distort her? You think he digitally edited in the tears? The only person I see distorting anything about this woman and her greif is you.

No, but he USED the woman to make a point...and I would NOT be surprised at all if the woman who told her to blame Al-Qaeda was not part of Moores cast either. The whole thing was so staged...and how do we KNOW the woman was in DC for a "conference?"

As with ANYTHING, there are conspiracy theories. ;)

How did he distort her? You think he digitally edited in the tears? The only person I see distorting anything about this woman and her greif is you.

I think he was being sarcastic.

So you have a moral right to argue about....recruiting policies? You're shooting at shadows Spoffin. If you want to argue about kids dying for what you think is nothing, fine. Don't twist words and don't turn something small into something big. Why? Be-fucking-cause. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
You tell me I should be ashamed of myself, you say that I shouldn't comment... and then tell me that I'm shooting at shadows. I'm confused, why are you telling me to shut up if you don't even think I have a point?

No, but he USED the woman to make a point...and I would NOT be surprised at all if the woman who told her to blame Al-Qaeda was not part of Moores cast either. The whole thing was so staged...and how do we KNOW the woman was in DC for a "conference?"

As with ANYTHING, there are conspiracy theories. ;)
God, you really are evil.

Of course thats your opinion. This is one thing that is never going to have a consensus. However, those with no dog in the fight seem to be the loudest for some reason.

If You are just refering to my statement about false pretenses here I'm sure and actually there is a consensus about it because intelligence failures have been noted and admitted to, but as always the bush administration seems to have come out smelling like roses and the CIA is taking the heat.

You tell me I should be ashamed of myself, you say that I shouldn't comment... and then tell me that I'm shooting at shadows. I'm confused, why are you telling me to shut up if you don't even think I have a point?

Please read the posts. I even threw a quote in there to help you. Now I'll lay it out for you.

1. Are you American? No. Therefore I didn't tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself.

2. I said you shouldn't comment because you don't understand how it works. When and if you do, comment away.

3. You are shooting at shadows

4. Once again you missed the point. But since I haven't yet, I'll do it now. Shut up....and yes...it's because you don't have a point!

Happy? You got me to flame with that last one. That's all most liberals want anyhow. They twist stuff around until someone calls them on it. They rant and rave until rational people finally get pissed off, and I'm just waiting for you to come back at me with how ignorant I am or something now that I finally got irritated. So go on...get it over with.

How cute. Wonder how many liberals have spewed that vile? They're sending the army to war...not "other people's kids".
The army is in fact made up of people though, yes? So, in a sense, if you send the army anywhere, you are also sending people, correct? And all people are somebody's kids, yes? So what's the problem?

Once again, if you don't want to go to war, don't join the military. It's that simple. Everyone knows it going in.

There was a broader point in F9/11 as well though, about how people who go in the military often don't have much choice. The choice becomes to join up as a reservist, or flip burgers for the rest of their life. The uniform is either red-and-yellow, or camoflage green. Not everyone has the same choice that people like me (white, middle class, suburban) has. It's not as simple as don't join up if you don't want to go to war. Many people don't have a real choice.

God, you really are evil.

Am I? Am I really?

Or do I think that Mr. Moore will distort the truth? I KNOW he will. How many people have to come forward to dispute quotes attributed to them in Mr. Moores books? He writes that he has interviewed people and attributes quotes to them and these same people come forward to say they have never even met the man. He is a demogogue and SOME of us can see that even if others are blind.

The army is in fact made up of people though, yes? So, in a sense, if you send the army anywhere, you are also sending people, correct? And all people are somebody's kids, yes? So what's the problem?



There was a broader point in F9/11 as well though, about how people who go in the military often don't have much choice. The choice becomes to join up as a reservist, or flip burgers for the rest of their life. The uniform is either red-and-yellow, or camoflage green. Not everyone has the same choice that people like me (white, middle class, suburban) has. It's not as simple as don't join up if you don't want to go to war. Many people don't have a real choice.
Frankly that's b.s..I don't ever recall seeing a potential recruit being forced to sign a document either under duress or by physical restraint..if you sign on the dotted line one of the first things you know is that the military service entails the possibility of combat...there is always a choice.....

The army is in fact made up of people though, yes? So, in a sense, if you send the army anywhere, you are also sending people, correct? And all people are somebody's kids, yes? So what's the problem?



There was a broader point in F9/11 as well though, about how people who go in the military often don't have much choice. The choice becomes to join up as a reservist, or flip burgers for the rest of their life. The uniform is either red-and-yellow, or camoflage green. Not everyone has the same choice that people like me (white, middle class, suburban) has. It's not as simple as don't join up if you don't want to go to war. Many people don't have a real choice.

1. My problem is that it's a damn liberal catch phrase that's used to get people emotional. Saying "those kids are off at war" sounds a lot worse than "the army is at war."

2. I agree, not everyone has the same choice. However, it's the risk you take. Want to make less money and be safe? Flip burgers. Want to make more money, have a kick-ass pension, but possibly go to war? Join the military.

The army is in fact made up of people though, yes? So, in a sense, if you send the army anywhere, you are also sending people, correct? And all people are somebody's kids, yes? So what's the problem?



There was a broader point in F9/11 as well though, about how people who go in the military often don't have much choice. The choice becomes to join up as a reservist, or flip burgers for the rest of their life. The uniform is either red-and-yellow, or camoflage green. Not everyone has the same choice that people like me (white, middle class, suburban) has. It's not as simple as don't join up if you don't want to go to war. Many people don't have a real choice.

Unreal.....as a non-US citizen you obviously drank the special kool-aid that Mr. Moore served up. Sadly many people do.... :rolleyes:

Am I? Am I really?

Or do I think that Mr. Moore will distort the truth? I KNOW he will. How many people have to come forward to dispute quotes attributed to them in Mr. Moores books? He writes that he has interviewed people and attributes quotes to them and these same people come forward to say they have never even met the man. He is a demogogue and SOME of us can see that even if others are blind.

The best part is, his followers chose to be blind while at the same time accusing the right of being blind to how "horrible" bush is.

Yep, that's "freedom of speech" for ya... LOL

Rational people are liberals. This isn't to say that all liberals are rational, or that all rational people are liberals, though.

The best part is, his followers chose to be blind while at the same time accusing the right of being blind to how "horrible" bush is.

There is yet another part of his movie that is being discredited. In the movie he shows a headline from a newspaper in Illinois dated Dec 19th 2000 that purports that the recounts went to Gore or some such thing. The editor of that same paper has said that that headline was NEVER on his paper. He has accused Moore of fabricating the whole thing. This just in today....so before the election, that movie will be shown for what it is...a lie.

The choice becomes to join up as a reservist, or flip burgers for the rest of their life. The uniform is either red-and-yellow, or camoflage green

Still a choice … if you were wearing the red-and-yellow one their isn’t much chance of you going to war is there :-P you pay for the choice. But it is STILL a choice

Rational people are liberals. This isn't to say that all liberals are rational, or that all rational people are liberals, though.

So...what you're saying is...

Thesis: Rational people are liberals.

Proof: This isn't to say that all liberals are rational, or that all rational people are liberals, though.

Yeah...as I thought...you disproved yourself.

So...what you're saying is...

Thesis: Rational people are liberals.

Proof: This isn't to say that all liberals are rational, or that all rational people are liberals, though.

Yeah...as I thought...you disproved yourself.

Not at all. I didn't say in my "thesis" that ALL rational people are liberals.

There is yet another part of his movie that is being discredited. In the movie he shows a headline from a newspaper in Illinois dated Dec 19th 2000 that purports that the recounts went to Gore or some such thing. The editor of that same paper has said that that headline was NEVER on his paper. He has accused Moore of fabricating the whole thing. This just in today....so before the election, that movie will be shown for what it is...a lie.

I just wish that Limbaugh or someone would make their own movie. Sure it may be equally bullshit...but it'd at least even out the lies.

I just wish that Limbaugh or someone would make their own movie. Sure it may be equally bullshit...but it'd at least even out the lies.

The Bush administration has it's share of lies already. Moore's movie evened them out. Limbaugh's movie would skew the lies further.

Not at all. I didn't say in my "thesis" that ALL rational people are liberals.

Ok then...what exactly did you say? Personally it didn't make much sense. You seemed to make a stupid generalization saying that "all rational people are liberals"...and then to back it up you said that being rational has nothing to do with political affiliation. Perhaps you didn't disprove yourself completely...but you did make a fool out of yourself.

I just wish that Limbaugh or someone would make their own movie. Sure it may be equally bullshit...but it'd at least even out the lies.

I don't like those guys either, Limbaugh is an idiot too, but I see your point. They all lie, but Mr. Moore has made it into an artform.

Though with all this arguing the TOPIC of the thread still boils down to this


1 Thus aforementioned solder made an apparently political standing in a public forum (movie tv radio … and so on)

2 REGS say that no military personnel are supposed to make any sort of statement like he did in a public forum (note of any kind without prior approval)


Seems to be a fairly cut and dried case to me

So...what you're saying is...

Thesis: Rational people are liberals.

Proof: This isn't to say that all liberals are rational, or that all rational people are liberals, though.

Yeah...as I thought...you disproved yourself.

1) that's not a Proof, that's a clarification;

2) a better clarification would have been "it is possible to be both liberal and rational";

3) no Postulates have been defined so no Proof can be formulated.

Though with all this arguing the TOPIC of the thread still boils down to this


1 Thus aforementioned solder made an apparently political standing in a public forum (movie tv radio … and so on)

2 REGS say that no military personnel are supposed to make any sort of statement like he did in a public forum (note of any kind without prior approval)


Seems to be a fairly cut and dried case to me

I concur..let's stick with the facts please..back on topic...Bill, myself, and a few others are correct....judging from purely UCMJ statutes, he can and should be given Non-Judicial Punishment...Article 15 of the UCMJ.

Though with all this arguing the TOPIC of the thread still boils down to this


1 Thus aforementioned solder made an apparently political standing in a public forum (movie tv radio … and so on)

2 REGS say that no military personnel are supposed to make any sort of statement like he did in a public forum (note of any kind without prior approval)


Seems to be a fairly cut and dried case to me

Agreed UpwardThrust!

Though with all this arguing the TOPIC of the thread still boils down to this


1 Thus aforementioned solder made an apparently political standing in a public forum (movie tv radio … and so on)

2 REGS say that no military personnel are supposed to make any sort of statement like he did in a public forum (note of any kind without prior approval)


Seems to be a fairly cut and dried case to me

Ah...but yet our buddies standing to our left don't see it that way.

Ah...but yet our buddies standing to our left don't see it that way.

Naturally because they hate bush and anyone that criticizes him is a hero in there eyes. LOL

Ok then...what exactly did you say? Personally it didn't make much sense. You seemed to make a stupid generalization saying that "all rational people are liberals"...and then to back it up you said that being rational has nothing to do with political affiliation. Perhaps you didn't disprove yourself completely...but you did make a fool out of yourself.

Perhaps it would have been better to say "rational people are generally liberals." But I figured the second sentence would alter the meaning of the first so that it would be interpreted as that.

1) that's not a Proof, that's a clarification;

2) a better clarification would have been "it is possible to be both liberal and rational";

3) no Postulates have been defined so no Proof can be formulated.

... *strange silence*

The point was that he didn't make sense. I'm sorry I used "Proof" instead of "clarification". *rolls eyes*

Though with all this arguing the TOPIC of the thread still boils down to this


1 Thus aforementioned solder made an apparently political standing in a public forum (movie tv radio … and so on)

2 REGS say that no military personnel are supposed to make any sort of statement like he did in a public forum (note of any kind without prior approval)


Seems to be a fairly cut and dried case to me

Yes, assuming that there was no prior approval.

Perhaps it would have been better to say "rational people are generally liberals." But I figured the second sentence would alter the meaning of the first so that it would be interpreted as that.


Lol don’t thing that statement is any more correct then the first … I have a feeling that the idiocy is fairly evenly distributed :-P

Perhaps it would have been better to say "rational people are generally liberals." But I figured the second sentence would alter the meaning of the first so that it would be interpreted as that.

There you go. I see that intelligence peeking through the cloud of "liberal-ness". It didn't, but at least you're thinking.

Also...you're from pittsburgh? What part?

1. My problem is that it's a damn liberal catch phrase that's used to get people emotional. Saying "those kids are off at war" sounds a lot worse than "the army is at war."
And you say "pre-emptive strike" rather than "unprovoked attack", so its nots like you're speaking from a moral highground.

Yes, assuming that there was no prior approval.

You really think that the army would allow someone to badmouth them in uniform. Yeah...I doubted it too.

Yes, assuming that there was no prior approval.

If their was … their position is not very actionable … meaning they really don’t have a case at all (still DOES have to go through some checks and balances in there) Probably bill can explain them better then if I went and looked them all up :)

There you go. I see that intelligence peeking through the cloud of "liberal-ness". It didn't, but at least you're thinking.

Also...you're from pittsburgh? What part?
South Hills...Carrick, to be more exact.

And you say "pre-emptive strike" rather than "unprovoked attack", so its nots like you're speaking from a moral highground.

Wouldn't pre-emtive strike be the less emotional of the two? You sure you got that order right?

If their was … their position is not very actionable … meaning they really don’t have a case at all (still DOES have to go through some checks and balances in there) Probably bill can explain them better then if I went and looked them all up :)

Exactly. We'll find out later if the Marine ends up getting punished or not.

There you go. I see that intelligence peeking through the cloud of "liberal-ness". It didn't, but at least you're thinking.

Also...you're from pittsburgh? What part?

Moon here!

You really think that the army would allow someone to badmouth them in uniform. Yeah...I doubted it too.

Irregardless...it is highly unlikely he had authorization...he disrespected his Commander-in-Chief while in uniform....let's stick to facts here Spoffin..there is nothing we have said that is incorrect in that statement...accordingly our UCMJ, which is actually modeled in part after the same military system of jurisprudence that the United Kingdom's military uses..he can and should be charged under at least 3 violations of that legal code.

South Hills...Carrick, to be more exact.

I lived in Fox Chapel before, and I'm going to pitt right now.

Please read the posts. I even threw a quote in there to help you. Now I'll lay it out for you.

1. Are you American? No. Therefore I didn't tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself.
Well if I had been, why should I have been ashamed of myself?

2. I said you shouldn't comment because you don't understand how it works. When and if you do, comment away.
Oh please, I beg of you, enlighten me. Show me the true error of my understanding, and I will apply all of my power into rectifying.[/QUOTE]

Happy? You got me to flame with that last one. That's all most liberals want anyhow. They twist stuff around until someone calls them on it. They rant and rave until rational people finally get pissed off, and I'm just waiting for you to come back at me with how ignorant I am or something now that I finally got irritated. So go on...get it over with.If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No-one will think less of you if you take some time out to cool down, rather than do on to say something stupid enough to get you warned.

I don't want you to flame. Nothing would please me more than if people here could engage in rational, reasonable debate.

I just wish that Limbaugh or someone would make their own movie. Sure it may be equally bullshit...but it'd at least even out the lies.Yeah, cos what Rush doesn't have at the moment is enough air time.

Here's my view:
The soldier made an error and will be punished for it. No doubt about it.
What I want to know is if there's no political pressure behind the actions of the military to go after that guy. I mean, if some soldier make a political stance in uniform like that but it support the current president, will he be prosecuted or will they let it slide?

Well if I had been, why should I have been ashamed of myself?


Oh please, I beg of you, enlighten me. Show me the true error of my understanding, and I will apply all of my power into rectifying.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No-one will think less of you if you take some time out to cool down, rather than do on to say something stupid enough to get you warned.

I don't want you to flame. Nothing would please me more than if people here could engage in rational, reasonable debate.

And yet in the post that you try to take the holier than thou approach, you flame. Amazing...

If you were American, you should be ashamed because without the military, you wouldn't be living the life that you are now. But then again...you're British...so I guess you should be at least grateful. You could be speaking german right now.

Also, for those pittsburgh boys and girls: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6688436#post6688436

Yeah, cos what Rush doesn't have at the moment is enough air time.

You mean, the same Rush Limbaugh that is broadcast to the troops even though if you were to ask the people who determine what can be broadcast to the troops they would tell you that political commentary is strictly forbidden?

Ah...but yet our buddies standing to our left don't see it that way.
No, "we" don't. I personally believe that the best people to speak about the truth and nature of war are the people who have been to war. And I don't think that its right for the government or the army to punish someone for speaking their mind. Now, this soldier may have broken the UCMJ, and he should have been more careful about that if he didn't want to face consequences, and I'm sorry that he has to pay the price. But I think that if they punish him, they would be wrong, morally if not legally. There is also a great tradition of strong willed people who are willing to break the law to speak their minds and get their points across. If he broke the law, and did so with cognisciene of it, then he's going to have to take the rap. But my god if I don't think its downright courageous to do so.

Here's my view:
The soldier made an error and will be punished for it. No doubt about it.
What I want to know is if there's no political pressure behind the actions of the military to go after that guy. I mean, if some soldier make a political stance in uniform like that but it support the current president, will he be prosecuted or will they let it slide?

That's an unfair question though. I doubt the military has a problem with soliders complimenting their officers...and I doubt they have a problem with them complimenting their president either.

You really think that the army would allow someone to badmouth them in uniform. Yeah...I doubted it too.

I mentioned earlier, that Moore claimed that he went to the Marines stating that he was a journalist and want their help. He claimed they assumed that he was making a positive piece about them, since that's all the media was doing at that point, so they didn't ask questions. Certainly it's unlikely, but that's what he said. If so, or not, we'll find out.

No, "we" don't. I personally believe that the best people to speak about the truth and nature of war are the people who have been to war. And I don't think that its right for the government or the army to punish someone for speaking their mind. Now, this soldier may have broken the UCMJ, and he should have been more careful about that if he didn't want to face consequences, and I'm sorry that he has to pay the price. But I think that if they punish him, they would be wrong, morally if not legally. There is also a great tradition of strong willed people who are willing to break the law to speak their minds and get their points across. If he broke the law, and did so with cognisciene of it, then he's going to have to take the rap. But my god if I don't think its downright courageous to do so.

If you break a law or a code or whatever, you're punished. That's how it works. It's not courageous...it's stupid. He may have just ruined his career. He won't be punished because he's a liberal, he's going to be punished because he can't keep his mouth shut.

Naturally because they hate bush and anyone that criticizes him is a hero in there eyes. LOL
Someone who goes to war to serve their country is a patriot. Even more patriotic is standing up and speaking your mind to benefit your friends and your comrades. Still more patriotic than that is when that action becomes an act of self-sacrifice because you are punished for doing so. If you don't think that standing up for an issue which you feel strongly about, which you above all others have a right to comment on, if you don't think that doing that makes you a hero, then you need a value check.

First off, here's the original USA Today story link:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-07-28-fahrenheit-marine_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-07-28-fahrenheit-marine_x.htm)
... there's absolutely NO MENTION of RUMSFELD in the story. MKULtra is just doing his usual inflammatory conspiracy theory chicken-little the sky is falling routine.

Second, here's some quotes from the USA Today story:

"The Marine Corps is conducting a preliminary inquiry into Henderson's appearance in Fahrenheit 9/11. Marine spokesman Capt. Patrick Kerr says authorities need to decide whether any action is warranted. "He made it very clear that he would not follow orders," Kerr says. "We're trying to determine what, if anything, he said or did was wrong" and what the punishment might be." ... it's a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION to determine if he has violated any policies and procedures of the USMC. If you went on T.V. or were in a movie, and spoke ill of your employer, any employer, and publicly proclaimed, "I'm going to refuse to go to work and perform my assigned duties for which I was hired and took an oath to perform", your butt SHOULD be fired.

"Henderson faces harsher penalties if he fails to report for a second Iraq tour. "Technically, he'd be a deserter," Kerr says. Punishment could range from an administrative discharge to a court-martial, which could land Henderson in a military prison for up to a year, Kerr says." ... he's flat said he won't return to Iraq if ordered to do so. If he refuses to go because he just doesn't believe in it, he's toast, and he should be. What the hell did he think he was going to do in the USMC... bag groceries? As a conscientious objector, he stands on much firmer ground. However, a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military under any circumstances is most definitely a black mark on your name when you enter the professional work place trying to find a decent job. It's probably worse than being a convicted felon.

"Henderson says a Moore staffer contacted him after he showed up at congressional hearings last fall with military families who were against the war." ... his appearance in the movie was a SETUP, a scripted PART as an actor in the movie. And here I thought Michael Moore just happened to "run into him" on the street in D.C. while he was decked out in uniform, as portrayed in the movie. Damn that Michael Moore, he lied. Imagine that...

"When this country goes to war, everyone should pitch in," says Henderson, a business major at California State University-Los Angeles. "As a soldier, that's what I signed up for." ... this dim bulb sounds like a woman, he can't make up his mind what he should do. He'll do his job, if he approves of the assignment. The military doesn't play those candy-assed kind of games. When you sign on the dotted line, your ass is 0wn3d by the USMC for the term signed up for. You abide by the UCMJ as well as policies and procedures, you don't question your assignments, you don't refuse an order, period.

Anyway, my point is, MKUltra is just trying to inflame you all by basically saying Rumsfeld is attending to this personally, and he's not. MKUltra will probably say that since Rumsfeld is the head honcho of the military, he's personally going after Abdul Henderson... by proxy. The simple fact of the matter is, the USMC is checking it out to see if discipline is warranted, just as they would if a soldier appeared in Playboy, marched in a Gay Pride parade in uniform, or committed some other infraction of the UCMJ or policies and procedures. If he did nothing wrong, no discipline. They can't just make up new rules as they go along when a situation that MAY warrant discipline presents itself, and they don't. Just because his dumb ass appeared in a fake-u-mentary that's a popular gigantic con-job (which so many of you suckers gobbled down, and were left asking for seconds), doesn't mean he should be exempt from rules and law.

Take your Prozac MKUltra...


...

I mentioned earlier, that Moore claimed that he went to the Marines stating that he was a journalist and want their help. He claimed they assumed that he was making a positive piece about them, since that's all the media was doing at that point, so they didn't ask questions. Certainly it's unlikely, but that's what he said. If so, or not, we'll find out.

Like moore doesn't lie...and because no one knows who he is

Its not easy to disguise a face that...nasty...

Wouldn't pre-emtive strike be the less emotional of the two? You sure you got that order right?
Beg pardon, I was talking about the propaganda for when you go to war, not when you're attacked yourselves

Irregardless...it is highly unlikely he had authorization...he disrespected his Commander-in-Chief while in uniform....let's stick to facts here Spoffin..there is nothing we have said that is incorrect in that statement...accordingly our UCMJ, which is actually modeled in part after the same military system of jurisprudence that the United Kingdom's military uses..he can and should be charged under at least 3 violations of that legal code.I don't think that someone experienced in warfare should be punished for speaking negatively of the experiences he has had in it. The law apparently disagrees with me. So be it.

I mentioned earlier, that Moore claimed that he went to the Marines stating that he was a journalist and want their help. He claimed they assumed that he was making a positive piece about them, since that's all the media was doing at that point, so they didn't ask questions. Certainly it's unlikely, but that's what he said. If so, or not, we'll find out.


But that sort of thing is NOT done without paper work … most likely including approval on not only the general idea but specifics like who he was associated with and credentials. (and if he gave him those details he most likely be in a position to have action taken against him too)

Otherwise any idiot could come in claming anything to try and get information by pretending to have press credentials

Most likely the individual MARINE believed that moore was a supportive journalist but it is highly unlikely the MARINES would have stamped their approval on as little evidence as that

I saw the movie but cant remember what the soldier said about his Commander in Cheif that was so bad. Can anyone enlighten me?

I agree that he should not have been in uniform while speaking his mind about the war in Iraq (especially if he did not have permission to do so), but I do think that any harsh punishment would be silly, although I don't put anything past teh Bush administration.

I find it interesting that Salishe seems to think that a judiciary hearing about it would be too lenient. Of course I know that he is a military man thru and thru and they can do no wrong in teh military in his eyes, but don't you think that he should at least have the chance to defend himself?

And yet in the post that you try to take the holier than thou approach, you flame. Amazing...

If you were American, you should be ashamed because without the military, you wouldn't be living the life that you are now. But then again...you're British...so I guess you should be at least grateful. You could be speaking german right now.

Also, for those pittsburgh boys and girls: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6688436#post6688436And you should be grateful to the French, who helped you win the revolutionary war blah blah blah. You really want to dig into the nostalgia file?

I don't think that someone experienced in warfare should be punished for speaking negatively of the experiences he has had in it. The law apparently disagrees with me. So be it.

Your right it does. UCMJ is the Law of the Military. If its violated, you get punished.

And you should be grateful to the French, who helped you win the revolutionary war blah blah blah. You really want to dig into the nostalgia file?

HAHA!!! The French. They helped us in ONE WAR, we bailed them out of TWO. Who should be grateful to whom?

If you break a law or a code or whatever, you're punished. That's how it works. It's not courageous...it's stupid. He may have just ruined his career. He won't be punished because he's a liberal, he's going to be punished because he can't keep his mouth shut.
Yeah, except that you just said that if he'd not been liberal, if he'd been speaking a conservative, pro-Bush, pro-military message, the army would have no problem with it. It is about what he said.

Whatever people...I'm gone. Nice fighting with ya...but I got some other stuff to get done. Until next time...

HAHA!!! The French. They helped us in ONE WAR, we bailed them out of TWO. Who should be grateful to whom?
The USA has had its fair share of allies which it has alternately fought and helped. Its purest, distilled BS to talk about gratitude for something that happened decades before you were born.

Yeah, except that you just said that if he'd not been liberal, if he'd been speaking a conservative, pro-Bush, pro-military message, the army would have no problem with it. It is about what he said.

Actually the military can't say that either! That'll violate Regs I believe.

I don't think that someone experienced in warfare should be punished for speaking negatively of the experiences he has had in it. The law apparently disagrees with me. So be it.

Only in full uniform!

The same thing is seen in the civilian sector where companies can terminate employees for using phones/email for personal conversation

Because that email has the company name on it and it is ACTING like a REPRESENTIVE weather they want to be or not

In uniform weather it is true or not they appear to be representative of a point of view … the military wants control of what their appearances are … hell civilian companies have that sort of control (not quite the same punishment but still have control)

If he would have not been in full uniform he could have said what he damn well pleased ... (though he wouldn’t have been as good of representative for the movie would he)

I don't think that someone experienced in warfare should be punished for speaking negatively of the experiences he has had in it. The law apparently disagrees with me. So be it.

"Henderson's unit, an ANGLCO (Air Naval Gunfire Liaison company), radioed air and artillery support for British coalition forces. He won the Marine Corps Achievement Medal after trying to rescue British soldiers who were trapped in an overturned vehicle."

Wow... his experience amounts to using a radio to relay messages calling in air-strikes and getting an "atta-boy" for helping some poor guys who flipped their rig. He sits in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable station, eating good food, and getting plenty of rest. What kind of "experience in warfare" could he have, other than that nagging sore butt from sitting too long.

I saw the movie but cant remember what the soldier said about his Commander in Cheif that was so bad. Can anyone enlighten me?

I agree that he should not have been in uniform while speaking his mind about the war in Iraq (especially if he did not have permission to do so), but I do think that any harsh punishment would be silly, although I don't put anything past teh Bush administration.

I find it interesting that Salishe seems to think that a judiciary hearing about it would be too lenient. Of course I know that he is a military man thru and thru and they can do no wrong in teh military in his eyes, but don't you think that he should at least have the chance to defend himself?

Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice concerns Non-Judicial Punishment, meaning...no Court-Martial is warranted...it's sorta like...being sent to detention instead of being expelled from your school...it's a slap on the wrist...he'd get a black mark in his book over this incident..probably restricted to barracks, perhaps some pay taken, and mebbe be scrubbin garbage cans for a month or two..but that is all...this is what I advocated but if it turns out he plans on refusing orders to Iraq....well...the stakes just got upped to potential Court-Martial proceedings...an Article 32 hearing at that point would be convened, he would be read his rights, assigned counsel and an investigation launched to determine if there are grounds for Court-Martial.

Here's my view:
The soldier made an error and will be punished for it. No doubt about it.
What I want to know is if there's no political pressure behind the actions of the military to go after that guy. I mean, if some soldier make a political stance in uniform like that but it support the current president, will he be prosecuted or will they let it slide?


That's an unfair question though. I doubt the military has a problem with soliders complimenting their officers...and I doubt they have a problem with them complimenting their president either.

It doesn't have to be a compliment. Hypothetical situation: One soldier in uniform goes out and say that there should be a constitutional amemdment to ban gay marriage. It is the same position as the president but clearly a political stance. Does he get the hearing or is the commander-in-chief powerfull enough to sweep it under the rug?
That's why I think that there more to this story than a regulation violation.

Only in full uniform!

The same thing is seen in the civilian sector where companies can terminate employees for using phones/email for personal conversation

Because that email has the company name on it and it is ACTING like a REPRESENTIVE weather they want to be or not

In uniform weather it is true or not they appear to be representative of a point of view … the military wants control of what their appearances are … hell civilian companies have that sort of control (not quite the same punishment but still have control)

If he would have not been in full uniform he could have said what he damn well pleased ... (though he wouldn’t have been as good of representative for the movie would he)Just OOI, did we see his shoes? Do we know he was in full uniform? If movies can get away with incomplete name tags...

Please note, this is a dumbass point. Rather like arguing whether it matters or not that this guy was in uniform or out of it when he said what he did. A soldier can't be credible as a witness of war unless he's dressed up to the nines? Honestly

"Henderson's unit, an ANGLCO (Air Naval Gunfire Liaison company), radioed air and artillery support for British coalition forces. He won the Marine Corps Achievement Medal after trying to rescue British soldiers who were trapped in an overturned vehicle."

Wow... his experience amounts to using a radio to relay messages calling in air-strikes and getting an "atta-boy" for helping some poor guys who flipped their rig. He sits in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable station, eating good food, and getting plenty of rest. What kind of "experience in warfare" could he have, other than that nagging sore butt from sitting too long.

Meat...I gotta bust ya on this...when the fire has you pinned down and your taking wounded..and you turn to your RO (radio operator) or your ANGLICO rep and tell him to bring hell on earth to the enemy..it's your ANGLICO Marines who do fire-support and make that enemy go away with either Naval or land-based artillery assets..in many cases your ANGLICO are not just in the rear-with-the-gear...but on the line with the infantry coordinating assaults...so let's not dump on them ANGLICO boys.

The USA has had its fair share of allies which it has alternately fought and helped. Its purest, distilled BS to talk about gratitude for something that happened decades before you were born.

Outside of France and Spain (who also helped but no one remembers that) as well as the Dutch, Only France did we sign a true alliance with.

France had allies with other nations closer to home. France only joined because they wanted revenge on the Brits, and they got it as did Spain. At the end of the war, France got the Midwest and Spain got Florida Back.

We fought the Brits ALONE in War of 1812! We helped Texas get independence from Mexico then in 1848, Fought Mexico ALONE. In 1861, we fought the Confederates alone thought Confed tried to get Britian and France onto their side. Didn't quite work. We fought Spain alone in 1898. We participated in WWI in 1917 because of the Zimmerman note, not the only reason. We never did become part of any alliance in that war. In 1941, US was attacked by Japan. We pretty much fought alone except near Australia where NZ and AUS forces assisted in battles around them that the Japs had. In Europe, We did join the Allies that included the Soviet Union. However, we only really have an alliance with France. Now we have NATO that is a military alliance.

If you don't want to talk about gratitude then DON'T BRING IT UP!

"Henderson's unit, an ANGLCO (Air Naval Gunfire Liaison company), radioed air and artillery support for British coalition forces. He won the Marine Corps Achievement Medal after trying to rescue British soldiers who were trapped in an overturned vehicle."

Wow... his experience amounts to using a radio to relay messages calling in air-strikes and getting an "atta-boy" for helping some poor guys who flipped their rig. He sits in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable station, eating good food, and getting plenty of rest. What kind of "experience in warfare" could he have, other than that nagging sore butt from sitting too long.
More jackass stuff. I'll take the classic Republican tactic and say that you can't criticise him til you sign up yourself. Except I won't, cos I'm not as much of a jackass as that.

He clearly had enough of a negative experience to decide he was never going back. I somehow feel that probably there was more to this than you claim.

Just OOI, did we see his shoes? Do we know he was in full uniform? If movies can get away with incomplete name tags...

Please note, this is a dumbass point. Rather like arguing whether it matters or not that this guy was in uniform or out of it when he said what he did. A soldier can't be credible as a witness of war unless he's dressed up to the nines? Honestly

I didn’t say he wasn’t credible but do you honestly believe he would have had the impact if he had been in civvies? Honestly?

loyalty is expected once you enter and join the government...one of my friend's aunt who is a tax official what caught in a demonstration against the government, something bad happened to her.

Outside of France and Spain (who also helped but no one remembers that) as well as the Dutch, Only France did we sign a true alliance with.

France had allies with other nations closer to home. France only joined because they wanted revenge on the Brits, and they got it as did Spain. At the end of the war, France got the Midwest and Spain got Florida Back.

We fought the Brits ALONE in War of 1812! We helped Texas get independence from Mexico then in 1848, Fought Mexico ALONE. In 1861, we fought the Confederates alone thought Confed tried to get Britian and France onto their side. Didn't quite work. We fought Spain alone in 1898. We participated in WWI in 1917 because of the Zimmerman note, not the only reason. We never did become part of any alliance in that war. In 1941, US was attacked by Japan. We pretty much fought alone except near Australia where NZ and AUS forces assisted in battles around them that the Japs had. In Europe, We did join the Allies that included the Soviet Union. However, we only really have an alliance with France. Now we have NATO that is a military alliance.

If you don't want to talk about gratitude then DON'T BRING IT UP!
Ok, and now who are among your biggest trading partners? Japan, Mexico. And who supported you in the coalition of the willing? Britain, Spain. You see what I'm talking about?

I didn’t say he wasn’t credible but do you honestly believe he would have had the impact if he had been in civvies? Honestly?
Yeah, I do. Kerry talks about Vietnam from time to time, he does it out of uniform. Dole talks about WW2, he does it out of uniform. You put this guy on, caption underneath saying his name, his unit and "served in Iraq", yeah I think he'll have an impact.

Ok, and now who are among your biggest trading partners? Japan, Mexico. And who supported you in the coalition of the willing? Britain, Spain. You see what I'm talking about?

has no bearing here!

If you don't want to talk about gratitude then DON'T BRING IT UP!
I didn't. I just continued the point

has no bearing here!
That's exactly what I've been saying. Don't be so self important as to believe you deserve gratitude cos of something you did 60 years ago, especially when that debt has been paid off again and again.

I was gunna suggest that maybe he was wearing tennis shoes so therefore maybe they couldn't charge him with being in uniform.

Salishe I see what you are saying. I agree that if he broke some rules then he should maybe get minor punishment and Im sure that teh black marks on his record will keep him from advancing too far.

I wonder, would you, or anyone here, support a military code that allows a soldier to basically say that they dnt agree with the war (because, let's say, that the enemy posed no threat to the U.S.) or they dont agree with the way the war is being fought (because, let's say, there are Depleted Uranium rounds being used), and because of that they could discontinue service and lose all of their pay and benefits and status as a member of the military?

Let's stay on topic people....as Meat was so kind to post...this is a normal investigation to see if a Marine has violated orders if any.

Now..it has been made abundantly clear of any possible violations of the military legal code...let's stick to the facts and go accordingly by that UCMJ, and whether or not he violated said orders or will be planning to violate orders should he refuse to deploy to Iraq...going strictly by the UCMJ and only the UCMJ.

Yeah, I do. Kerry talks about Vietnam from time to time, he does it out of uniform. Dole talks about WW2, he does it out of uniform. You put this guy on, caption underneath saying his name, his unit and "served in Iraq", yeah I think he'll have an impact.

AN impact yes

Not the same impact no

One of the big differences is that the people you mention’s claim to fame is NOT being in the military nor are the purpose that they are talked to/about because they fought for this country
They are someone with a political position that happened to be in the military … the impact that they make is not BECAUSE they are in the military
Also they are not appearing to be representative of the military point of view

The only reason this marine had any coverage in the movie at all is because he was a willing participant to make a point … some jerk in a sweatshirt wouldn’t have made the same impact.

It is all about appearances

More jackass stuff. I'll take the classic Republican tactic and say that you can't criticise him til you sign up yourself. Except I won't, cos I'm not as much of a jackass as that.

He clearly had enough of a negative experience to decide he was never going back. I somehow feel that probably there was more to this than you claim.

Spoken like a true know-it-all armchair Monday morning quarterback.

First off... I was there. I was in Iraq in Desert Storm, and my unit eventually pushed all the way into Kuwait where we met heavy resistance and ultimately sent the last Iraqi units down the "Highway of Death", where they got creamed by our A-10 support as they tried to flee Kuwait with the LOOT they stole when they ransacked homes, museums, government offices, and financial institutions. We rescued dozens of hostages and rendered aid to hundreds of starving and abused Kuwaiti's while we fought our way thru Kuwait City at the same time. I probably slept 8 hours for every 3-days of comabt engagement. You have no idea what I've seen, what I know, and what I experienced. I received the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in combat when I took a huge chunk of shrapnel in my right thigh. I have a 10-inch scar and no feeling in my right leg from the thigh down. When I healed up, I went back to my unit, I was lucky. My lifer bro's, who are still in and are back in Iraq now, e-mail me and tell me about what's going on as often as they can. I get the straight scoop, from people who are there right now.

Second... no, you would never leave the safety of your tiny little computer, in your safe and cozy little home, to serve your country in any way, shape, or form. You know why? You're like all the rest of the selfish "self-entitled" liberals out there. Some people risk their necks to serve their country, while you and so many like you do nothing but bitch about a subject you have no knowledge about... aside from what you see on T.V. and at the movie theater. Save your sanctimony for someone else.

Let's stay on topic people....as Meat was so kind to post...this is a normal investigation to see if a Marine has violated orders if any.

Now..it has been made abundantly clear of any possible violations of the military legal code...let's stick to the facts and go accordingly by that UCMJ, and whether or not he violated said orders or will be planning to violate orders should he refuse to deploy to Iraq...going strictly by the UCMJ and only the UCMJ.I haven't debated whether the law says he should be punished, I just feel from a moral perspective that he should not be.

AN impact yes

Not the same impact no

One of the big differences is that the people you mention’s claim to fame is NOT being in the military nor are the purpose that they are talked to/about because they fought for this country
They are someone with a political position that happened to be in the military … the impact that they make is not BECAUSE they are in the military
Also they are not appearing to be representative of the military point of view

The only reason this marine had any coverage in the movie at all is because he was a willing participant to make a point … some jerk in a sweatshirt wouldn’t have made the same impact.

It is all about appearances

Well actually, what I have heard is that Kerrys political career came about from a speech he gave 30 years ago about the Vietnam war. Although who I heard that from could have been wrong. So that is apparently Kerry's claim to fame.

Spoken like a true know-it-all armchair Monday morning quarterback.

First off... I was there. I was in Iraq in Desert Storm, and my unit eventually pushed all the way into Kuwait where we met heavy resistance and ultimately sent the last Iraqi units down the "Highway of Death", where they got creamed by our A-10 support as they tried to flee Kuwait with the LOOT they stole when they ransacked homes, museums, government offices, and financial institutions. We rescued dozens of hostages and rendered aid to hundreds of starving and abused Kuwaiti's while we fought our way thru Kuwait City at the same time. I probably slept 8 hours for every 3-days of comabt engagement. You have no idea what I've seen, what I know, and what I experienced. I received the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in combat when I took a huge chunk of shrapnel in my right thigh. I have a 10-inch scar and no feeling in my right leg from the thigh down. When I healed up, I went back to my unit, I was lucky. My lifer bro's, who are still in and are back in Iraq now, e-mail me and tell me about what's going on as often as they can. I get the straight scoop, from people who are there right now.

Second... no, you would never leave the safety of your tiny little computer, in your safe and cozy little home, to serve your country in any way, shape, or form. You know why? You're like all the rest of the selfish "self-entitled" liberals out there. Some people risk their necks to serve their country, while you and so many like you do nothing but bitch about a subject you have no knowledge about... aside from what you see on T.V. and at the movie theater. Save your sanctimony for someone else.Salishe, who doesn't exactly agree with me often but whom I still have a mind to believe more than you, thinks that this guy's position may mean that he has seen some action.

Salishe, who doesn't exactly agree with me often but whom I still have a mind to believe more than you, thinks that this guy's position may mean that he has seen some action.

Yes, it's possible he may have been a RO ANGLICO rep, but had he been, he'd have made it clear that he was there on the front lines in that position to reinforce his standing in the way he represented himself in his bit part role in Moore's lie-fest.

So I tend to believe he was not up front, but in fact, "in the rear with the gear".

I would be extremely surprised if the Marine Public Affairs office did not want to see a script or what the Marine would be saying in the movie.

The film is a documentary, so how can Mr. Moore give the Marines a script of what someone is going to say of their own free will in the future?

Well actually, what I have heard is that Kerrys political career came about from a speech he gave 30 years ago about the Vietnam war. Although who I heard that from could have been wrong. So that is apparently Kerry's claim to fame. could be

But still Kerry is not trying to act representative of the military

And morally I feel they have a right to say what their personnel portray as a military perspective … had he not been in uniform I would have whole heartedly endorsed what he said (not necessarily the content but his right to say whatever he wanted)

But again he probably wouldn’t have been in the movie if he hadn’t been in uniform :-P

I'm in the military, and we get classes on this stuff from JAG.

It is against the UCMJ to take part in any cause while in uniform.

Toys for tots isn't a cause, it's a charity program. Getting interviewed about military actions by the press is not taking part in a cause it's getting interviewed.

What's so hard to understand?

I was gunna suggest that maybe he was wearing tennis shoes so therefore maybe they couldn't charge him with being in uniform.

Salishe I see what you are saying. I agree that if he broke some rules then he should maybe get minor punishment and Im sure that teh black marks on his record will keep him from advancing too far.

I wonder, would you, or anyone here, support a military code that allows a soldier to basically say that they dnt agree with the war (because, let's say, that the enemy posed no threat to the U.S.) or they dont agree with the way the war is being fought (because, let's say, there are Depleted Uranium rounds being used), and because of that they could discontinue service and lose all of their pay and benefits and status as a member of the military?

We've gone by this military legal code since the inception of this country, it has worked so far..I have seen no compelling reasoning to abadon or rewrite it...and the rules are clear...there was nothing he couldn't say as long as he wasn't in uniform..being in uniform explicitly implies representation of the military...and of that the Marine had no authorization to do so. And as I said, he upped the legal stakes when he shot his mouth off bout refusing deployment to Iraq..kid rolled the dice and now he's going to come up craps. Be a man, take your licks and move on.

The film is a documentary... ?

You believe that?

doc·u·men·ta·ry

adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now that you actually know the definition of "documentary", do you still think Moore's slop was truly a documentary?

The film is a documentary, so how can Mr. Moore give the Marines a script of what someone is going to say of their own free will in the future?

Not necessarily a full script but defiantly would want an overview of the topics discussed and the forum it was in and a lot of other information about the direction the “interview”

(because remember according to moore he just told him that he was a REPORTER and usually reporters have a line of questioning … )

And find it exceedingly hard to swallow that they didn’t check up on his credentials … and therefore just assumed he must be a pro war reporter :-P yeah right they get their fair share of anti war reporters and protesters and such that I figure they aught to be in the habit of checking EVERYONE

He can't question the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. My dad hated Clinton but didn't say so publicly in or out of uniform because under Uniform Code of Military Justice, its illegal. Though he could if he was out of it.

Since this guy was in it and in uniform, it violates Regs and thus, he can be punished. Rules are Rules.


Yes you can question the commander in chief. The applicable statue is:

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

So you can question them as much as you like, as long as it is done respectfully, and besides this only applies to officers.

I'm in the military, and we get classes on this stuff from JAG.

It is against the UCMJ to take part in any cause while in uniform.

Toys for tots isn't a cause, it's a charity program. Getting interviewed about military actions by the press is not taking part in a cause it's getting interviewed.

What's so hard to understand?


Hmmm, I'm looking at the UCMJ as we speak. Can you please help me find this statute?

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCHAPTERX.html

Yes you can question the commander in chief. The applicable statue is:

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

So you can question them as much as you like, as long as it is done respectfully, and besides this only applies to officers.

If you continue to look...enlisted have their own articles.

If you continue to look...enlisted have their own articles.

Zep, Salishe is right.

There are at least 5 Articles he could be found guilty of.

I was gunna suggest that maybe he was wearing tennis shoes so therefore maybe they couldn't charge him with being in uniform.

Salishe I see what you are saying. I agree that if he broke some rules then he should maybe get minor punishment and Im sure that teh black marks on his record will keep him from advancing too far.

I wonder, would you, or anyone here, support a military code that allows a soldier to basically say that they dnt agree with the war (because, let's say, that the enemy posed no threat to the U.S.) or they dont agree with the way the war is being fought (because, let's say, there are Depleted Uranium rounds being used), and because of that they could discontinue service and lose all of their pay and benefits and status as a member of the military?


We've gone by this military legal code since the inception of this country, it has worked so far..I have seen no compelling reasoning to abadon or rewrite it...and the rules are clear...there was nothing he couldn't say as long as he wasn't in uniform..being in uniform explicitly implies representation of the military...and of that the Marine had no authorization to do so. And as I said, he upped the legal stakes when he shot his mouth off bout refusing deployment to Iraq..kid rolled the dice and now he's going to come up craps. Be a man, take your licks and move on.

I was just asking if you supported my idea at all. Besides, slavery worked well for a long time too, should we have kept that around?

I wasn't trying to defend that Marines rights. I'm no lawyer.

Is there something in my suggestion that causes you worry? Do you think that people should not be able to change their mind about participating in war after they learn the real horrors of it? Please re-read my suggestion and tell me if you think you would support it at all. If not then why not?

Getting interviewed about military actions by the press is not taking part in a cause it's getting interviewed.

Finally, some sense. The soldier was being interviewed, he wasn't speaking at an anti-war rally!

Funny how I don't remember too many liberals being so upset when W's predeccessor (CLINTON) did the exact same thing! :confused:

1) http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/pen-o21.shtml

2)http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no26/vo14no26_praetorian.htm

3) http://augustachronicle.com/stories/110298/opi_087-4159.shtml

I was just asking if you supported my idea at all. Besides, slavery worked well for a long time too, should we have kept that around?

I wasn't trying to defend that Marines rights. I'm no lawyer.

Is there something in my suggestion that causes you worry? Do you think that people should not be able to change their mind about participating in war after they learn the real horrors of it? Please re-read my suggestion and tell me if you think you would support it at all. If not then why not?

Change your mind all you want..don't matter a hill of beans...lots of men who went to Vietnam didn't want to stay there once they'd been in country..didn't matter then..don't matter now.

Me worry?..not from any suggestion you made. No military member wants to go to war..obstensibly because they bear the burden of it..not surprised the Marine doesn't want to go..but that point is irrevelent.

If you continue to look...enlisted have their own articles.

OK, does somebody have a link so I can examine the text of it? If it is similarly worded then it clearly does not outright ban disagreement but rather deals with the presentation.

i.e) You could probably say - "I don't think this war is a great idea", but not "That moron Bush is pulling orders out of his arse".

Indeed, as I read the article the investigation centers around his statement of intent to disobay a lawful order by refusing to deploy, not any statements around the war itself.

Ohhh I remember that Clinton thing now yeah


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neusiana
Getting interviewed about military actions by the press is not taking part in a cause it's getting interviewed.


Finally, some sense. The soldier was being interviewed, he wasn't speaking at an anti-war rally!


No but he was STILL taking a political stand in uniform therefore representing the military

Like was mentioned before if he had taken a pro-life (which GW supports) or lets say anti stem cell opinion … on camera … in uniform … I would expect him to be slapped just as hard

Salishe - So my suggesting is not a good idea because...?

Can you give reasons why people shouldn't be able to discontinue their service once they disagree with the way their service is being used?

There are at least 5 Articles he could be found guilty of.


All I'm asking for is a link....

OK, does somebody have a link so I can examine the text of it? If it is similarly worded then it clearly does not outright ban disagreement but rather deals with the presentation.

i.e) You could probably say - "I don't think this war is a great idea", but not "That moron Bush is pulling orders out of his arse".

Indeed, as I read the article the investigation centers around his statement of intent to disobay a lawful order by refusing to deploy, not any statements around the war itself.

You've stated it well...and it's a point I have brought up but apparently most are listening..if it was merely a matter of on F 9/11..at most he'd get Art. 15 for his statements..and Art 132...it's a catch all...they can get him on that, and the disobedience of an order, to wit he had no authorization from public affairs to be there in uniform...finally...if the statements he made regarding refusal of orders to deploy....THEN he's bought the whole store and we go from a slap on the wrist to Court-Martial.

All I'm asking for is a link....

wait one please..looking now..

Here ya go Zep..it appears to be the official website...but there are a few other non-governmental info types

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Non-governmental

http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm

wait one please..looking now..

Thanks - it's not that don't believe the regs exist, I just like to read the actual text of them rather than guess the scope etc. of applicable articles.

Salishe - So my suggesting is not a good idea because...?

Can you give reasons why people shouldn't be able to discontinue their service once they disagree with the way their service is being used?

Yeah, cause they would quit if they did not agree with what they were doing and the unit would soon cease to exist. Since the military is for fighting wars and noone is forced to go into it, what is your point?

Yeah, cause they would quit if they did not agree with what they were doing and the unit would soon cease to exist. Since the military is for fighting wars and noone is forced to go into it, what is your point?

Then they would lose their benefits and pay and go back to their daily civilian life.

I highly doubt that most people would quit if they could. But if someone wants to quit then they certainly aren't a good person to be watching your back. Plus you really have a problem if none of your troops are backing you. In a military force of what... 3 million (?) - what does it matter if 100 or even 1000 want to quit?

You've stated it well...and it's a point I have brought up but apparently most are listening..if it was merely a matter of on F 9/11..at most he'd get Art. 15 for his statements..and Art 132...it's a catch all...they can get him on that, and the disobedience of an order, to wit he had no authorization from public affairs to be there in uniform...finally...if the statements he made regarding refusal of orders to deploy....THEN he's bought the whole store and we go from a slap on the wrist to Court-Martial.

I don;t see where Article 132 would neccessarily apply in that it only relates to "false or fraudulent" statements. Personal opinion and experience is not fradulent unless he made a direct claim relating to what the President knew or something similar. Does anyone have the text of his interview linked anywhere?

ART. 132. FRAUDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Any person subject to this chapter--
(1) who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent--
(A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or
(B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment, any claim against the United States or any officer thereof;
(2) who, for the purpose of obtaining the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against the United States or any officer thereof
(A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain false or fraudulent statements;
(B) makes any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper knowing the oath to be false; or
(C) forges or counterfeits any signature upon any writing or other paper, or uses any such signature knowing it to be forged or counterfeited;
(3) who, having charge, possession, custody, or control of any money, or other property or the United States, furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, knowingly delivers to any person having authority to receive it, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a certificate or receipt; or
(4) who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper certifying the receipt of any property of the United States furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, makes or delivers to any person such writing without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements therein contained and with intent to defraud the United States;
shall, upon conviction, be punished as a court-martial may direct.

besides... if EVERYONE wanted to quit because of the way the militray was using the service of the troops, then that should either say something about the way the war is being handled, or the reasons for going to war or maybe even both. It might force the military to change the way it treats the soldiers and it might force politicians to cease going into unjust wars.

Then they would lose their benefits and pay and go back to their daily civilian life.

I highly doubt that most people would quit if they could. But if someone wants to quit then they certainly aren't a good person to be watching your back. Plus you really have a problem if none of your troops are backing you. In a military force of what... 3 million (?) - what does it matter if 100 or even 1000 want to quit?

When you enlist, you make a COMMITMENT to serve for a defined period of time. Simple enough? IF nothing happens during that time, it is easy money and a 9-5 job. IF you end up going to fight somewhere, well, thats what you are paid to do. If someone wants to quit...they can. However, there are consequences of doing so. They will receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. Any future job that is applied for...said employer will request the code from your DD-214. THAT code follows you for the rest of your life. Don't think so? Both jobs I have held since I retired have included a request for the code from my DD-214. So those who quit....go ahead, but there are things to consider before running out on your commitment.

I don;t see where Article 132 would neccessarily apply in that it only relates to "false or fraudulent" statements. Personal opinion and experience is not fradulent unless he made a direct claim relating to what the President knew or something similar. Does anyone have the text of his interview linked anywhere?

ART. 132. FRAUDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Any person subject to this chapter--
(1) who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent--
(A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or
(B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment, any claim against the United States or any officer thereof;
(2) who, for the purpose of obtaining the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against the United States or any officer thereof
(A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain false or fraudulent statements;
(B) makes any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper knowing the oath to be false; or
(C) forges or counterfeits any signature upon any writing or other paper, or uses any such signature knowing it to be forged or counterfeited;
(3) who, having charge, possession, custody, or control of any money, or other property or the United States, furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, knowingly delivers to any person having authority to receive it, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a certificate or receipt; or
(4) who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper certifying the receipt of any property of the United States furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, makes or delivers to any person such writing without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements therein contained and with intent to defraud the United States;
shall, upon conviction, be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Oopss..sorry..meant Art. 134...lol...damn typos.

besides... if EVERYONE wanted to quit because of the way the militray was using the service of the troops, then that should either say something about the way the war is being handled, or the reasons for going to war or maybe even both. It might force the military to change the way it treats the soldiers and it might force politicians to cease going into unjust wars.

The BEST years of my life were spent in the military, with the exception of the 8 years Clinton was in office. No payraises for 7 years got old fast.

OH ok, so someone can quit during wartime adn get a dishonorable discharge and not worry about jailtime? I didn't knwo that. DO they lost their pay and benefits? I imagine that they do.

Thats all I was asking.

And that is all fine and good that they were the best years of your life but obviously some people are miserable.

Yes, they made a commitment. The US Govt. made a commitment to the soldiers not to send them in harms way unless it was necessary and the US was in danger. This isn't the case with Iraq. If the Govt. breaks their commitment then the soldiers contract should be null and void.

OH ok, so someone can quit during wartime adn get a dishonorable discharge and not worry about jailtime? I didn't knwo that. DO they lost their pay and benefits? I imagine that they do.

Thats all I was asking.

And that is all fine and good that they were the best years of your life but obviously some people are miserable.

Yes, they made a commitment. The US Govt. made a commitment to the soldiers not to send them in harms way unless it was necessary and the US was in danger. This isn't the case with Iraq. If the Govt. breaks their commitment then the soldiers contract should be null and void.

I never said anything about there not being jail time. If they desert during wartime, say run away from the battlefield, they can be shot for desertion. Since when did the government make any commitment not to send any soldier/sailor/airman/or marine into harms way? Thats what they are there for!! Military's EXIST to go into harms way. Again, it is simple. If you do NOT want to go, don't join. DON'T make the commitment if you are not prepared to live up to it.

Look at this guy they have in Japan now. He deserted his post in South Korea in 1965 and went over to the North Koreans. NOW the US has him and will likely put him on trial for desertion.

Those who do quit and take the bad conduct or dishonorable discharge end up flipping burgers or some other menial job. trust me, you DO NOT want to end up with one of those on your record, your options are SEVERELY limited.

my actual statement was "The US Govt. made a commitment to the soldiers not to send them in harms way unless it was necessary and the US was in danger."


Why are you putting my statements out of context? Wait a minute.. you are Bill O'Rielly arent you? I was merely asking a question about something I don't fully understand.

Plus I was talking about a soldier filing to leave the military because of a disagreement with the way they are being used or a disagreement with the reason for the war. I was not talking about those desserting their post and running away leaving their comrades in harms way. Can you please try to follow what I am saying, because I honestly think you are missing the point entirely.

You really don't believe that if a soldier thinks that they are being used for utterly wrong purposes that they should go to jail for disagreeing with it and trying to get out of it?

Those who do quit and take the bad conduct or dishonorable discharge end up flipping burgers or some other menial job. trust me, you DO NOT want to end up with one of those on your record, your options are SEVERELY limited.

Couldn't he go to college and never mention being in the military? yes. Then after getting out of college could he not mention his military service while looking for a job? Yes.

Nope, you still have millions of options with a dishonorable discharge.

Also, can someone please clear this up for me? If its a wartime and you take a dishonorable discharge... do you face jailtime? In other words, Can the guy from the F9/11 say that he does not want to take part in the military anymore and just quit. What happens? Will he lose his benefits? What else?

my actual statement was "The US Govt. made a commitment to the soldiers not to send them in harms way unless it was necessary and the US was in danger."


Why are you putting my statements out of context? Wait a minute.. you are Bill O'Rielly arent you? I was merely asking a question about something I don't fully understand.

Plus I was talking about a soldier filing to leave the military because of a disagreement with the way they are being used or a disagreement with the reason for the war. I was not talking about those desserting their post and running away leaving their comrades in harms way. Can you please try to follow what I am saying, because I honestly think you are missing the point entirely.

You really don't believe that if a soldier thinks that they are being used for utterly wrong purposes that they should go to jail for disagreeing with it and trying to get out of it?

Actually I think there SHOULD be some sort of punishment and let me tell you why I think this way before you think I am some right-wing nutjob.

Before you sign on that contract you make with the government to serve in the military, you are informed of EVERYTHING. You are asked repeatedly if you understand what you are agreeing to and what you will be doing. Then you are put through the tests and depending on what your job will be, a psycological exam. I loaded nukes so I went through a LOT of those. ALL of this is done BEFORE you ever get to basic training. For someone to later say they did not know what they would be doing is just false. I know of ONE...yes ONE guy who quit by claiming concientious objector status. He had already been in for 2 years and there was no war or fighting going on. He was given a less than honorable discharge and gone within 10 days. So it CAN be done, but the cost is MUCH greater than finishing your commitment and going on with your life. I expect he is flipping burgers somewhere...or worked himself up to night manager or something. However, when he did this he lowered the combat effectiveness of the unit and HAD there been a conflict he could have put others in greater danger. Because he refused to go, someone else had to go.

Couldn't he go to college and never mention being in the military? yes. Then after getting out of college could he not mention his military service while looking for a job? Yes.

Nope, you still have millions of options with a dishonorable discharge.

Also, can someone please clear this up for me? If its a wartime and you take a dishonorable discharge... do you face jailtime? In other words, Can the guy from the F9/11 say that he does not want to take part in the military anymore and just quit. What happens? Will he lose his benefits? What else?

Yes he can go to college, but he will not recieve any government help in doing so. No college loans to pay for it. Trust me, the government knows everything. In order to apply for college loans or a job you need to supply your social security number...and THAT triggers your military status.

Now, in the case of wartime, there may be no discharges, that usually kicks off a "stop-loss" whereby noone is allowed out. Right after 9-11 that kicked in. I retired a few months BEFORE 9-11 and my boss was scheduled to in Nov 2001, but was kept on duty until Aug 2002.

Actually I think there SHOULD be some sort of punishment and let me tell you why I think this way before you think I am some right-wing nutjob.

Before you sign on that contract you make with the government to serve in the military, you are informed of EVERYTHING. You are asked repeatedly if you understand what you are agreeing to and what you will be doing. Then you are put through the tests and depending on what your job will be, a psycological exam. I loaded nukes so I went through a LOT of those. ALL of this is done BEFORE you ever get to basic training. For someone to later say they did not know what they would be doing is just false. I know of ONE...yes ONE guy who quit by claiming concientious objector status. He had already been in for 2 years and there was no war or fighting going on. He was given a less than honorable discharge and gone within 10 days. So it CAN be done, but the cost is MUCH greater than finishing your commitment and going on with your life. I expect he is flipping burgers somewhere...or worked himself up to night manager or something. However, when he did this he lowered the combat effectiveness of the unit and HAD there been a conflict he could have put others in greater danger. Because he refused to go, someone else had to go.

OK you crazy right wing nutjob... lol j/k

So you think there should be punishment because someone else had to go in his place? huh? Or because he deminished the effectiveness of his group even though it wasn't war time and there was noone to be effective with? OKay I guess I am not following you cuz this certainly can't be yoru argument.

Now, on to the point that is STILL being missed. And this is my last time trying to get you to understand... I promise.

So... the military tells you EVERYTHING huh? Wow, that must be a lot of information. *snicker* I could have sworn that the US Govt assures those signing up for the military that they wont be sent to a war unless the US is somehow in danger. When the US Govt. breaks this promise, then shouldn't the soliers have a legal out?

OK you crazy right wing nutjob... lol j/k

So you think there should be punishment because someone else had to go in his place? huh? Or because he deminished the effectiveness of his group even though it wasn't war time and there was noone to be effective with? OKay I guess I am not following you cuz this certainly can't be yoru argument.

Now, on to the point that is STILL being missed. And this is my last time trying to get you to understand... I promise.

So... the military tells you EVERYTHING huh? Wow, that must be a lot of information. *snicker* I could have sworn that the US Govt assures those signing up for the military that they wont be sent to a war unless the US is somehow in danger. When the US Govt. breaks this promise, then shouldn't the soliers have a legal out?

They do not make that promise, so your argument is flawed.

When you join, you are there for the full use of the gov't as they see fit. The benefits for finishing your commitment are outstanding, the punishments for not are as equally bad. Why reward someone who cannot fulfill their commitments? If the gov't tells you that you have to go to Korea for a year, you go. IF you decline the assignment, and you can as long as there is no "stop-loss" in effect, then you have 90 days to find a new job, providing someone will hire you with that less than honorable discharge. There ARE ways out of the military that do not involve prison time, but economic hardships can also be called a prison too.

Actually I think there SHOULD be some sort of punishment and let me tell you why I think this way before you think I am some right-wing nutjob.

Before you sign on that contract you make with the government to serve in the military, you are informed of EVERYTHING. You are asked repeatedly if you understand what you are agreeing to and what you will be doing. Then you are put through the tests and depending on what your job will be, a psycological exam. I loaded nukes so I went through a LOT of those. ALL of this is done BEFORE you ever get to basic training. For someone to later say they did not know what they would be doing is just false. I know of ONE...yes ONE guy who quit by claiming concientious objector status. He had already been in for 2 years and there was no war or fighting going on. He was given a less than honorable discharge and gone within 10 days. So it CAN be done, but the cost is MUCH greater than finishing your commitment and going on with your life. I expect he is flipping burgers somewhere...or worked himself up to night manager or something. However, when he did this he lowered the combat effectiveness of the unit and HAD there been a conflict he could have put others in greater danger. Because he refused to go, someone else had to go.
It appears that there is more restrictions put on an enlisted man regarding do's and don'ts than there is on the President of the US.

The soldier in question, went over to Iraq, served his tour, didn't like the reasons why he was there and doesn't want to go back. I can't blame him. Perhaps if Bush also had to do exactly what was required of the enlisted man, he might think the same thing IF he came back.

The big question in all of this, would be....why is America even fighting in Iraq? WMD or ties to Al-Queda? Nope that has proved false. To remove Saddam from power is the fall back position.

Bush jumped the gun and sent troops into Iraq, even though UN inspectors were doing an admirable job of looking for what they really couldn't find (WMD) because there are none.

Even Scott Ritter suggested that there where none and that Iraq had been unarmed long before the 2nd team of inspectors were sent in Nov. 2002:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4280517-103677,00.html

Who is more irresponsible in this matter? The enlisted soldier who went over to Iraq, served his time, returned with all his limbs and his life, and doesn't want to go back and fight Bush's war, or Bush who sent the troops there in the first place.

WHO has put the troops in harms way?

Firstly, Spoffin's already touched on this but I'm going to reiterate it so there's no room for misunderstanding. I am talking about the morality of this legal action. I am not questioning it's legality. They're two totally seperate things. To give a historical example: Laws permitting slavery- legally sound, morally reprehensible. So I'm afraid that makes comments like,

Crimes? We are talking about a MARINE who was IN UNIFORM who CRITICIZED his Command-in-Chief. That is VIOLATING REGS!entirely irrelevant, no matter how much YOU SHOUT.

Oh god...I forgot about that. I sure hope The Holy Word was talking about prisoner abuse and not the soldier violating regs. So it's Bushes fault that someone went against the regs of the USMC? Doubt it.Yes, I was talking about prisoner abuse. Because you can't have it both ways, either the Commander in Chief is a millitary position, in which case yes, Bush is responsible for the actions of his subordinates. The buck stops at the top and if an operational commander doesen't know what his subordinates are doing that's gross negligence. Or as you say, The Highest Ranking Military Officer, more commonly known as "Commander in Chief"...is more of an honorary title. It also keeps the military under the control of the President.it's purely an honorific, then criticising it is not a genuine breach of military disiplince, whatever the law says. You're not criticising a military officer, merely a civilian.As I said, you cannot send your child to the army or send them to war. Him asking them to do so is him being a dumbass. You can however encourage your child to join the army. You can also say that you'd support that move, hence increasing military morale. I know a lot of squaddies (past and present) and one thing they all, whatever their other politics, have no time for is rich kids like Bush coming in at command level without having gone through the ranks.All I'm saying is that you if you don't understand how recruiting works (as you've shown) you should not continue to question it. Stephistan isn't American, yet she knows what she's talking about. I can't say the same for you.That's not what you said at all. You said, If you're not American, then you have no right to comment on US recruiting.If you're going to change your stance after seeing the opposing arguments fine. But have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that's what youe doing. Please substantiate your claim that I have no knowledge of recruitment procedure or withdraw it.

What I find ironic here is that the "patriots" who claim they're supporting the soldiers are doing so by arguing that they should have less rights to participate in the democratic process then a civilian. With friends like you guys, who needs enemies? (And yes Formal Dances, I apply that across the board, I think it was equally wrong that your father was not allowed to publically express his views). Apart from anything else, who is better qualified to talk about goverment military policy then those who bear the brunt of it?

I always appreciate a post by The Holy Word. Well thought out from perspectives some might never even consider. Kudos.Thanks. :)

If the soldier really said that, he violated his oath to the UCMJ, he should spend some time in the stockade before a DD.

But the real villain here is Michael Moore. He should be in jail awaiting hanging for spreading sedition in time of war. The fat traitor made the best recruiting tool Hamas or Al Qaeda could have asked for.

He criticized the US President IN UNIFORM! This violates the UCMJ. He cannot Criticize the President While in uniform. it is clearly spelled out in it. Lets not bring Bush into this Debate because Bush is actually irrelevent.

Stick to the facts of this case CH!

:headbang:

He criticized the US President IN UNIFORM! This violates the UCMJ. He cannot Criticize the President While in uniform. it is clearly spelled out in it. Lets not bring Bush into this Debate because Bush is actually irrelevent.

Stick to the facts of this case CH!
Maybe he is irrelevant to you but I believe that Bush has certainly done far more harmful actions to the enlisted men that some poor schmuck enlistee.

Maybe he is irrelevant to you but I believe that Bush has certainly done far more harmful actions to the enlisted men that some poor schmuck enlistee.

This Thread isn't about BUSH, its about a soldier who criticized Bush while in Uniform. That is against Regs.

Can someone quote what the Soldier was saying against Bush please?

It appears that there is more restrictions put on an enlisted man regarding do's and don'ts than there is on the President of the US.

Absolutely there are.

The soldier in question, went over to Iraq, served his tour, didn't like the reasons why he was there and doesn't want to go back. I can't blame him. Perhaps if Bush also had to do exactly what was required of the enlisted man, he might think the same thing IF he came back.

Regardless, I did not like the 2 1/2 years I spent in the middle east either, but I did my duty and am reaping the rewards for doing so (pension, healthcare for me and my family, educational benefits for my children). Do you think Generals have to do what the enlisted men do? Come on you are smarter than this statement implies.

The big question in all of this, would be....why is America even fighting in Iraq? WMD or ties to Al-Queda? Nope that has proved false. To remove Saddam from power is the fall back position.

Not part of this thread.

Bush jumped the gun and sent troops into Iraq, even though UN inspectors were doing an admirable job of looking for what they really couldn't find (WMD) because there are none.

Subjective.

Even Scott Ritter suggested that there where none and that Iraq had been unarmed long before the 2nd team of inspectors were sent in Nov. 2002:

Ritter was later found to have been paid by the Iraqi's....so. Irrelevant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4280517-103677,00.html

Who is more irresponsible in this matter? The enlisted soldier who went over to Iraq, served his time, returned with all his limbs and his life, and doesn't want to go back and fight Bush's war, or Bush who sent the troops there in the first place.

Military personnel are there to be put in harms way, that is their sole purpose! You might notice that there are not mass desertions or great numbers of military personnel who share this marines stance. He is a loner and he will be in a bad way once they get through with him.

WHO has put the troops in harms way?

Who? Many factors contributed to this. Some could argue the French had as much a hand in it, but again, subjective.

This Thread isn't about BUSH, its about a soldier who criticized Bush while in Uniform. That is against Regs.
Nobody here has said the action taken was legally unsound. The disagreement is about the morality of the action. So Regs are irrelevent to the discussion

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but this is starting to feel like deliberate straw man tactics. Please stop it.

This Thread isn't about BUSH, its about a soldier who criticized Bush while in Uniform. That is against Regs.
But it is about Bush. Rumsfeld is Bush's right hand man. Rumsfeld is going to punish a US soldier. Rumsfeld and Bush talk about these things? Of course they do.

Rumsfeld + Bush = punishment for one Marine (simplified math)

Since the UCMJ ONLY applies to US servicemen active and retired in some cases, arguing about it is pointless unless it applies to you. Morality aside, laws are there for a reason. Civilian laws may be changed, but the UCMJ is unlikely to ever be changed because military personnel are held to a higher standard than civilians. Civilians have very little understanding of the why and how of the UCMJ and will never have that because they do not know what it is like to be in the military.

Nobody here has said the action taken was legally unsound. The disagreement is about the morality of the action. So Regs are irrelevent to the discussion

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but this is starting to feel like deliberate straw man tactics. Please stop it.

Actually in this case Regs are relevent since that is what the UCMJ is based on.

But it is about Bush. Rumsfeld is Bush's right hand man. Rumsfeld is going to punish a US soldier. Rumsfeld and Bush talk about these things? Of course they do.

Rumsfeld + Bush = punishment for one Marine (simplified math)

It is NOT about Bush! Jeez get that through your head. Rumsfeld is following the UCMJ. The UCMJ is clear in this case thus Bush has nothing to do with this case. God in Heaven.

It is NOT about Bush! Jeez get that through your head. Rumsfeld is following the UCMJ. The UCMJ is clear in this case thus Bush has nothing to do with this case. God in Heaven.
The irony of this thread and the initial news release on this subject, is that it will likely create even more box office sales, and/or residuals for Fahrenheit 911.

Bush to Rumsfeld: There is a fire down below!!

Rumsfeld to rescuers: Bring more gasoline right away!!

God in Heaven has nothign to do with the USMJ :P

but besides... if this is about what he said about Bush... then how does this have nothign to do with Bush?

Also, please if you are going to say that he said something against Bush, please post it So I can see what he said. Noone has posted the transcript yet of what was said yet.

I am amazed at how many people who are NOT from the US are taking positions against this Marine being charged. In the UK the military is not even allowed to vote....period! here in the US the military tends to vote Republican because the Democrats have a very poor record of taking care of the military.

Carter - let the military founder. The Navy almost collapsed, vetoed new weapon systems.

Reagan - rebuilt the military, gave decent pay raises, outspent the Soviet Union, won the cold war.

Bush 1 - caught up in congressional cuts to the military, still enacted good pay raises.

Clinton - vetoed every payraise for 7 years, deployed the military more than any other president except FDR. Allows payraise in 2000, proclaims Clinton/Gore "taking care of the military" in last minute attempt to win over military votes for Gore.

Bush 2 - granted payraise upon taking office, set up 401K type savings plan for military. Enhanced education benefits.

God in Heaven has nothign to do with the USMJ :P

but besides... if this is about what he said about Bush... then how does this have nothign to do with Bush?

Also, please if you are going to say that he said something against Bush, please post it So I can see what he said. Noone has posted the transcript yet of what was said yet.

Because Bush is the CO of the Armed Forces. The Enlisted man Criticized him. By him criticizing Bush, He ineffect violated UCMJ. That is why he is getting punished.

God in Heaven has nothign to do with the USMJ :P

but besides... if this is about what he said about Bush... then how does this have nothign to do with Bush?

Also, please if you are going to say that he said something against Bush, please post it So I can see what he said. Noone has posted the transcript yet of what was said yet.

If I recall correctly, and I may very well might be wrong....

I believe he said something to the effect that Bush was not his commander and he did not support Bush, nor would he fight in his war. He also said that if he was ordered to, he would refuse to go again and he would call on others to do the same. THAT is sedition and could possibly get him prison time.

Of course I could be wrong, I only saw the movie at the insistence of my GF. She said it would work on those who are easily led by quick images and soundbites, but those who can think for themselves would see through it. I agree with her on that one. She is a staunch Democrat too.

It is against the UCMJ to support any cause while in uniform. Thank you, have a nice day.


Yes, the machines must follow the orders of the leader, no matter how wrong they are. They must not be allowed to question authority. They will kill and murder without a sound.

They are not human. They must have no voice. They must have no empathy.



... People like you are the worst of humanity... You are repugnant.

Yes, the machines must follow the orders of the leader, no matter how wrong they are. They must not be allowed to question authority. They will kill and murder without a sound.

They are not human. They must have no voice. They must have no empathy.



... People like you are the worst of humanity... You are repugnant.

I smell an Anti-War and Anti-Military person in this thread.

Since the UCMJ ONLY applies to US servicemen active and retired in some cases, arguing about it is pointless unless it applies to you. Morality aside, laws are there for a reason. Civilian laws may be changed, but the UCMJ is unlikely to ever be changed because military personnel are held to a higher standard than civilians. Civilians have very little understanding of the why and how of the UCMJ and will never have that because they do not know what it is like to be in the military.
But it's a circular argument. Nobody is disputing the legality of this action. So discussing it is pointless. We might as well have an argument about whether oxygen is necessary for survival.

I am amazed at how many people who are NOT from the US are taking positions against this Marine being charged.Surely you have a view on events in other countries other then the US? Do you have to be a Iranian citizen to condemn human rights abuses there?In the UK the military is not even allowed to vote....period! here in the US the military tends to vote Republican because the Democrats have a very poor record of taking care of the military. But I condemn that too, so you can hardly accuse me of singling the US out.

I've snipped your comments about Republican and Democratic Presidents because I've already made clear that my view that soldiers should have full democratic rights applys whichever party holds the Presidency at any time.

He ineffect violated UCMJNobody is bloody disputing that. Everyone accepts that as read. Can we move on now please?

Yes, the machines must follow the orders of the leader, no matter how wrong they are. They must not be allowed to question authority. They will kill and murder without a sound.

They are not human. They must have no voice. They must have no empathy.



... People like you are the worst of humanity... You are repugnant.

Welcome to the military....even the Portugese military is like that. Yes, I HAVE been to Portugal and YES, I have participated in military exercises with the Portugese Air Force. ALL militaries are the same. I would suggest that those who do NOT have any personal knowledge of the UCMJ and how it works to educate yourselves before jumping on the bandwagon. The Marine in question DID violate the regs and he WILL be punished because of that, not because of what he said. He could have done the chicken dance and STILL be in violation of the regs.

Yes, the machines must follow the orders of the leader, no matter how wrong they are. They must not be allowed to question authority. They will kill and murder without a sound.

They are not human. They must have no voice. They must have no empathy.



... People like you are the worst of humanity... You are repugnant.

How could you not know . . .

That's what you DO when you join the military!

You sign OVER your life to the government! You can not even THINK until the military decides you're good enough!

And the soldiers do this on their own free will, because they know that if you expect to win anything, you have to obey those rules.

And anyway, when they're off duty, they're allowed to express their views.

So what? Did I say I agree with the portuguese military?

Yes, the machines must follow the orders of the leader, no matter how wrong they are. They must not be allowed to question authority. They will kill and murder without a sound.

They are not human. They must have no voice. They must have no empathy.



... People like you are the worst of humanity... You are repugnant.
Time to bitchslap the other side of the debate.

Fuck you. Some of my best mates are squaddies. The army, in both the US and the UK is mainly made up of working class kids who a) want a better life and b) join up because they genuinely want to defend their country. I may disagree with the idea that that's what the army do, but I don't doubt the vast majority of it's recruits sincerity. To write off those kids is childish arrogant middle class bullshit.

I'm not convinced this is a genuine anti war activist FD. The rhetoric's completly wrong- including for a pacifist. And yes, I would recognise that more then you. ;)

So what? Did I say I agree with the portuguese military?

So you ARE an anti-soldier . . .

But it's a circular argument. Nobody is disputing the legality of this action. So discussing it is pointless. We might as well have an argument about whether oxygen is necessary for survival.

Morality has nothing to do with the UCMJ. It is an ammoral document. It ONLY applies to a limited number of people who VOLUNTEER to fall under it's requirements.

Surely you have a view on events in other countries other then the US? Do you have to be a Iranian citizen to condemn human rights abuses there?But I condemn that too, so you can hardly accuse me of singling the US out.

I do, but I limit myself to only those that I know about.

I've snipped your comments about Republican and Democratic Presidents because I've already made clear that my view that soldiers should have full democratic rights applys whichever party holds the Presidency at any time.

Military personnel do not give up ANY rights, there are just limitations placed on them. For instance...a military person can protest whatever he likes at the gates of his own base as long as he is in civilian clothes. Then he can put his uniform on and go to work as usual. Had this marine been in civilian clotes, he could have called Bush whatever name he wanted and said whatever he wanted to, but IN uniform he cannot because he is then seen as REPRESENTING the Marines. THATS where the limitations come in, but there is no denying of any rights.

I am not anti-soldier. I am against this war though. It is a shameless excuse for money making.

And I do believe in freedom of speech. And the soldier should be allowed to leave the military if he wants to (maybe he is). If he doesn't want to fight, then he leaves. His choice.

Well, it's your phantom story, I was assuming you had the URL.
the url is within the realm of the internet

the url is within the realm of the internet

Doesn't matter MKULTRA. As stated, it was against regs thus it violated the UCMJ.

I am not anti-soldier. I am against this war though. It is a shameless excuse for money making.

And I do believe in freedom of speech. And the soldier should be allowed to leave the military if he wants to (maybe he is). If he doesn't want to fight, then he leaves. His choice.

This shows exactly how little you know about the military. I would suggest that before you take a position on something, that you know something about the subject at hand. otherwise you look like....well, like you look now.

And you know this because you read his mind via your telepathy or was it your crystal ball...I forget which?
I know it from it being a PATTERN of this witch hunting administration

I am not anti-soldier. I am against this war though. It is a shameless excuse for money making.

And I do believe in freedom of speech. And the soldier should be allowed to leave the military if he wants to (maybe he is). If he doesn't want to fight, then he leaves. His choice.

I knew you were against this war. LOL

They can. My dad is getting out as soon as this deployment is up. He's retiring. And yes he has been in for over 20 Years. Actually 30 Years. LOL

Problem is he can't leave unless his enlistment is up but he cant leave until the day it IS up. Until then, he belongs to the government and his CO is President Bush. By criticising him, in Uniform, it violates Regs and he will be punished in accordance with the UCMJ!

I know it from it being a PATTERN of this witch hunting administration

And how is this a witch hunt when he clearly violated Military Regs?

So not knowing much about the rules makes me unable to speak. Ok.

So I can't say that free speech should be allowed. I can't say that the war is wrong.

So not knowing much about the rules makes me unable to speak. Ok.

So I can't say that free speech should be allowed. I can't say that the war is wrong.

Not while you are in Uniform! LOL

So not knowing much about the rules makes me unable to speak. Ok.

So I can't say that free speech should be allowed. I can't say that the war is wrong.

No, you can speak all you want. But when you speak of things without knowledge of them, how do you think that looks...or sounds.

I know very little about flowers, so for me to jump into a conversation about flowers and make statements that I cannot back up would be rather foolish would it not? Oh, i have every right to look foolish, but why would I want to?

So therefore.....why would you want to?

Bush 2 - granted payraise upon taking office, set up 401K type savings plan for military. Enhanced education benefits.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them?

The Veteran's Administration, plagued by recent budget cuts, has had to resort to charging new veterans entering into its system a yearly fee of $250 in order for them to receive treatment. It is a sad irony that the very people being sent to fight the war are going to have to pay to treat the effects of it.

Other cuts, and/or closure of Verteran's Hospitals:

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/veterans/health.html

Some reward?

CH, what does that have to do with this thread?

hehe

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them?

The Veteran's Administration, plagued by recent budget cuts, has had to resort to charging new veterans entering into its system a yearly fee of $250 in order for them to receive treatment. It is a sad irony that the very people being sent to fight the war are going to have to pay to treat the effects of it.

Other cuts, and/or closure of Verteran's Hospitals:

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/veterans/health.html

Some reward?

And yet they are building a new $10 million Veterans Hospital right here in my home town. Not that I use the VA anyway. I use Tri-Care prime for my healthcare, it is far better than the VA. As a disabled veteran I COULD get free healthcare from the VA, but I would rather use the civilian system because it is quicker. Not many veterans use the VA for healthcare truth be told. It is the educational benefits that really get used.

I do find it funny that you quote from a DEMOCRAT website. The DEMOCRATS are the cause of most of the problems in the military. They always treat the military with indifference. maybe that is why the vast majority of military personnel vote REPUBLICAN.

CH, what does that have to do with this thread?
It was in response to Biff Pileon's post. Just put in my 2 cents.

lol I think the key phrase being

The House of Representatives

It was in response to Biff Pileon's post. Just put in my 2 cents.

Thats fine, and yes, that bill did pass just like that. However, as I have said, most veterans do not use the VA for healthcare. In fact the only ones who do are the indigent (homeless) veterans who have no means of support. Their numbers are dropping as time goes on. As for the VA, I would not cry if they did away with it completely. It is a waste of money.

I am amazed at how many people who are NOT from the US are taking positions against this Marine being charged. In the UK the military is not even allowed to vote....period! here in the US the military tends to vote Republican because the Democrats have a very poor record of taking care of the military.

Carter - let the military founder. The Navy almost collapsed, vetoed new weapon systems.

Reagan - rebuilt the military, gave decent pay raises, outspent the Soviet Union, won the cold war.

Bush 1 - caught up in congressional cuts to the military, still enacted good pay raises.

Clinton - vetoed every payraise for 7 years, deployed the military more than any other president except FDR. Allows payraise in 2000, proclaims Clinton/Gore "taking care of the military" in last minute attempt to win over military votes for Gore.

Bush 2 - granted payraise upon taking office, set up 401K type savings plan for military. Enhanced education benefits.
correction: Bush 2 tried to cut veterans pay and health care benefits and only reversed himself when his own party wouldnt go along with it plus Bush has closed many VA hospitals too at a time when vets need them the most--furthermore Bush put soldiers in harms way based on a lie and Bush sent soldiers to die in Iraq for halliburtons greed without giving them the proper gear and when Bush went on his photo-op visit to soldiers on Thanksgiving just to upstage Hillary, he served the soldiers a PLASTIC TURKEY

lol I think the key phrase being

Yeah, too bad the Senate would have to also pass it and THEN get it past a veto. With numbers that close that is unlikely. So really it is a pointless argument at this time. Still, the VA is a mess and could be closed down completely.

correction: Bush 2 tried to cut veterans pay and health care benefits and only reversed himself when his own party wouldnt go along with it plus Bush has closed many VA hospitals too at a time when vets need them the most

AS a Veteran, and a disabled veteran at that, I KNOW that the vast MAJORITY of veterans DO NOT use the VA anyway. I would NEVER use the VA as long as I had another choice. NO amount of spending is going to change that.

Yeah, too bad the Senate would have to also pass it and THEN get it past a veto. With numbers that close that is unlikely. So really it is a pointless argument at this time. Still, the VA is a mess and could be closed down completely.

I agree with you Biff!