NationStates Jolt Archive

I speak out against him because the bastard went AWOL! That discredits all he says. If he resigned and said it, I would not be "smearing him" as you so bluntly put it. he deserves the scorn I give him for going AWOL.

That is an astounding logical error there.

Because you can't respect his actions, his words are not true?

Okay because you can't respect his actions you can't bear to hear his words, fine.

Or because you can't respect his actions his words fall on your deaf ears, fine.

But his words have certainly not been discredited, because you can't respect his actions.

I speak out against him because the bastard went AWOL! That discredits all he says. If he resigned and said it, I would not be "smearing him" as you so bluntly put it. he deserves the scorn I give him for going AWOL.

By all means, I make mine his words then! Each and every last one of his words in that text. There, they didn't come from the AWOL soldier now. NOW can you start arguing the TEXT rather than the PERSON, or you'll find out some excuse not to "respect me" too just so you can dodge the text and, once again, go "lalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" about it?

By all means, I make mine his words then! Each and every last one of his words in that text. There, they didn't come from the AWOL soldier now. NOW can you start arguing the TEXT rather than the PERSON, or you'll find out some excuse not to "respect me" too just so you can dodge the text and, once again, go "lalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" about it?

Want to make his words yours? That's fine. I disagree entirely. The war was just though it was mismanaged but things are slowly getting better.

I speak out against him because the bastard went AWOL! That discredits all he says. If he resigned and said it, I would not be "smearing him" as you so bluntly put it. he deserves the scorn I give him for going AWOL.

Again, he can't resign. It just doesn't work that way.

As for going AWOL, it's funny how you, as a civilian, see it as such a crime. To be honest, if he were in my unit and wanted out so strongly I'd want him to go AWOL rather than be forced to be there. In the military we have the concept of "do what you can afford", which basically means you can do just about whatever you want as long as you're willing to live with the consequences. As long as he's willing to live his life in constant fear of being picked up by the authorities I think it's pretty much a win-win situation for those to whom it should really matter, his unit and himself. Should he be punished for going AWOL? Yes, but as far as I'm concerned that punishment should consist of returning any enlistment bonus he received and receiving a less than honorable discharge.

As for what he actually wrote in his letter (which seems to be less important than his going AWOL to some posters here) I'm largely in agreement. However, unlike the good SGT, I'm not willing to deal with the consequences of similar actions.

You'd encourage someone to go Absent Without Leave? Gah. That's insane. And I maybe a civilian but BOTH of my parents were in the service. Hell..my father did SIX TOURS in Iraq. Did he want to go? No! Why? He did not want to leave his family. He did anyway because it was his duty. This asshat had a duty and he decided to go AWOL. He's beneath contempt.

Want to make his words yours? That's fine. I disagree entirely.

Then discuss it. Then prove to me why you disagree. Act as if the words you read (if you did) in that text were mine, and show me where he is or I am wrong.

He's beneath contempt.

Why?

For not fighting a war he disagreed with? For sticking to what his concionse told him was the right thing to do, even though it brings trouble to his life?

Yeah despicable, we should all fear to do what our conscionse tells us, instead....ohh hold on isn't that the cowards way?

You'd encourage someone to go Absent Without Leave? Gah. That's insane. And I maybe a civilian but BOTH of my parents were in the service. Hell..my father did SIX TOURS in Iraq. Did he want to go? No! Why? He did not want to leave his family. He did anyway because it was his duty. This asshat had a duty and he decided to go AWOL. He's beneath contempt.

Would I encourage him? No. Would I shed a tear if he did leave? No. If he wants so desperately not to be there, I don't want him there either. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I also don't think he's "beneath contempt" as you say. He may be a douchebag for leaving, but that's all he is, a douchebag. Again, I think his punishment should consist of returning any enlistment bonus he may have received and a less than honorable discharge.

Anyway, I think we've found the reason you feel that you have to believe this war is just. If my father had done six tours in Iraq I'd want to feel it was for a good reason too.

Why?

For not fighting a war he disagreed with? For sticking to what his concionse told him was the right thing to do, even though it brings trouble to his life?

If he claimed Conscientious Objector, that''s one thing. Going AWOL is purely another.

Yeah despicable, we should all fear to do what our conscionse tells us, instead....ohh hold on isn't that the cowards way?

Going AWOL to avoid duty is cowardice.

Anyway, I think we've found the reason you feel that you have to believe this war is just. If my father had done six tours in Iraq I'd want to feel it was for a good reason too.

And he was not the only relative of mine that has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

If he claimed Conscientious Objector, that''s one thing. Going AWOL is purely another.


I'm still not understanding how it is. Look at the scorn you poor on the man, and he has, presumably, got to face such everyday. For doing no more than his conciones told him was the right thing to do.

Forget for a second the war, or the AWOL, and look at it as a desicion that brings him trouble, but one he felt that he had to do.

I think it a brave thing to stand up for your principles, no?

And he was not the only relative of mine that has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So will you at least admit you can't view this thing in an objective, purely rational manner?

Click Stand;13156739']
However, it seems to me that he is just a puppet for some anti-war agenda™.

A what? Just listen to yourselves, people! Have you all gone completely insane?!
"the pro-war agenda"? "the anti-war agenda"? Why can't we just accept that there are differing opinions & not make this an "us vs. them" issue?

So will you at least admit you can't view this thing in an objective, purely rational manner?

Oh I can view it rationally but it is pretty much the same shit spoken out against the war.

A what? Just listen to yourselves, people! Have you all gone completely insane?!
"the pro-war agenda"? "the anti-war agenda"? Why can't we just accept that there are differing opinions & not make this an "us vs. them" issue?

Because it won't be NSG if we did that :D

A what? Just listen to yourselves, people! Have you all gone completely insane?!
"the pro-war agenda"? "the anti-war agenda"? Why can't we just accept that there are differing opinions & not make this an "us vs. them" issue?

Heh coz it always is. If you have a principle, you can bet somebody will hold the opposite. Welcome to humanity and it's whilley ways!:D

Oh I can view it rationally but it is pretty much the same shit spoken out against the war.

So...

Rationally you know that this war was a mistake.

Rationally you even AGREE with us.

And you choose to ignore rationality. For... truthiness.

Ladies and gentlemen, a perfect neocon.

So...

Rationally you know that this war was a mistake.

I do?

Rationally you even AGREE with us.

I do?

And you choose to ignore rationality. For... truthiness.

Ladies and gentlemen, a perfect neocon.

:rolleyes:

I do?



I do?



:rolleyes:

You said you "can view it rationally but it's the same shit spoken against the war". Either you agree with us or you can't express yourself properly.

You said you "can view it rationally but it's the same shit spoken against the war". Either you agree with us or you can't express yourself properly.

Now you know what I am thinking? WOW! I never knew you held such power :rolleyes:

Heh coz it always is. If you have a principle, you can bet somebody will hold the opposite. Welcome to humanity and it's whilley ways!:D

No, not always. We don't see this very often in academia, do we? Scientists aren't getting all dogmatic with each other about who has the best theory (granted, I mean for the most part doing so is frowned upon; I'm sure there are exceptions). It seems to me the issue isn't humanity, but rather our baser instincts. As humans we are quite capable of putting aside our baser feelings in a discussion. That is, in my opinion, a skill which brought mankind to believe that we have souls & are somehow different from the other creatures which inhabit our planet.

My point is this: There is no "conspiracy" of the side that disagrees with you. There are a spectrum of differing opinions. Just because a large amount of people seem to disagree with you, it does NOT mean they are organized in a group specifically to sway people's opinions against the one you hold. As a matter of fact, it may be your way of expressing your opinion that is pushing people away from holding the same opinion.

No it is not. I suggest you look up what "supreme law of the land" means. Article 6 of the US constitution says all treates entered into by the united states are supreme law of the land, to quote:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

I know what the "supreme law of the land provision means." I took Constitutional Law in law school. All that provision means is that treaties entered into by the US have the same force under US law as laws passed by Congress. Similarly, treaties can be revoked, superceded, or amended by a subsequent act of Congress. There is nothing special about a treaty under US law- it is simply treated like any other law passed by Congress, and Congress has the power to do with treaties the same things it can do to any other laws.

Right there. Treaties made under the authority of the united states are supreme and are only revoked once the treaty is withdrawn from. An act of congress can not circumvent a treat, it may only withdraw from the treaty, and the last time I checked, the US is still a member of the UN, and as such, is still a signatory to the charter.

Provisions dealing with how treaties may be revoked really only deal with relations between the US and other signatories to such treaties. They in no way bind Congress from passing laws that supercede the terms of such treaties. The only remedy for the other treaty signatories if they believe the US is in violation of its treaty obligations is to cancel the treaty on their end, or to use military force.

Quite simply put, one Congress cannot enter into a treaty that would limit the Constitutional powers of a subsequent Congress. One of Congress' powers is to authorize the use of military force. Congress is not bound by the terms of a treaty that limits that power.

Following your logic, today's Congress could enter into a non-withdrawable treaty that forever forbade the US from using military force without UN consent, and any future Congress would have no power to withdraw from the treaty or authorize military force.

Now you know what I am thinking? WOW! I never knew you held such power :rolleyes:

I think he was more refering to your demonstrated complete and total inability to articulate one clear, non-emotive, rational, well thought out and intelligent argument for your position.

All you have managed to do is make broad claims without substantiation, arguments without proof, and a slew of logical fallacies that make me hesistant to call the...near child-like rantings you have shown us an "argument"

I know what the "supreme law of the land provision means." I took Constitutional Law in law school. All that provision means is that treaties entered into by the US have the same force under US law as laws passed by Congress. Similarly, treaties can be revoked, superceded, or amended by a subsequent act of Congress. There is nothing special about a treaty under US law- it is simply treated like any other law passed by Congress, and Congress has the power to do with treaties the same things it can do to any other laws.

Absolutly, except you, once again, miss my point (you SURE you went to lawschool?) We haven't amended, revoked, or superceded the UN charter. We're still part of it. We're still in the UN. While a treaty is in effect it is binding. We can remove ourselves from the treaty or decide not to adhere to the treaty.

But we haven't done that. We're still in the treaty, we're still in the security council.

Quite simply put, one Congress cannot enter into a treaty that would limit the Constitutional powers of a subsequent Congress. One of Congress' powers is to authorize the use of military force. Congress is not bound by the terms of a treaty that limits that power.

Congress can not simultaniously be bound by contradictory laws. The Supremacy of Treaties clause in Article 6 makes it quite clear that when there are contradictory laws, the supremacy of the legitimate treaty trumps.

Congress is free to end the treaty but in our case the treaty is still in effect

Congress can not simultaniously be bound by contradictory laws. The Supremacy of Treaties clause in Article 6 makes it quite clear that when there are contradictory laws, the supremacy of the legitimate treaty trumps.

Congress is free to end the treaty but in our case the treaty is still in effect
Does the National Supremacy clause apply to Congress? Granted I've just started reading about it, but it looks like Marshall's decision was that it applied to States, i.e. National law transcended State law, "...In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.'' And it appears to be applied on an equal footing with laws of Congress.

Does the National Supremacy clause apply to Congress? Granted I've just started reading about it, but it looks like Marshall's decision was that it applied to States, i.e. National law transcended State law, "...In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.'' And it appears to be applied on an equal footing with laws of Congress.

You're talking about McCulloch v. Maryland yes? That's pretty much the point of the supremacy clause, yes. My point is, as I said, while Congressional laws passed pursuant to congressional authority is on "equal footing" with a treaty propertly ratified and signed, the United States can not simultaniously be bound by contradictory situations.

Which is to say, the argument goes, that we can not simultaniously be part of a treaty that says "no war in Iraq" and be at war with Iraq. The problem is, as you said, the two are considered equal. And while yes, it is true that one act can supercede a previous equal act, that's not what happened here.

Congress can choose to go to war with Iraq, even in the face of a treaty that says "no war in Iraq", because, as pointed out, one congress can't bind another. The problem is, in theory, going to Iraq would cause the previous treaty saying "no war in Iraq" to be null and void. Which they are perfectly free to do.

Except the problem is, the treaty we're talking about is the UN charter and, last time I checked, we're still in then UN. So congress superceded a treaty saying "no war in Iraq" while simultaniously being part of the treaty (presuming that the charter is a treaty in that sense and that we're violating it, which, as you correctly pointed out earlier, is speculative). We can't be bound by simultanious contradictory laws. So either congress effectively invalidated the treaty of the UN charter, in which case we're no longer part of the UN, or we're part of the UN, and thus still bound by that treaty.

You're talking about McCulloch v. Maryland yes? That's pretty much the point of the supremacy clause, yes. My point is, as I said, while Congressional laws passed pursuant to congressional authority is on "equal footing" with a treaty propertly ratified and signed, the United States can not simultaniously be bound by contradictory situations.

Which is to say, the argument goes, that we can not simultaniously be part of a treaty that says "no war in Iraq" and be at war with Iraq. The problem is, as you said, the two are considered equal. And while yes, it is true that one act can supercede a previous equal act, that's not what happened here.

Congress can choose to go to war with Iraq, even in the face of a treaty that says "no war in Iraq", because, as pointed out, one congress can't bind another. The problem is, in theory, going to Iraq would cause the previous treaty saying "no war in Iraq" to be null and void. Which they are perfectly free to do.

Except the problem is, the treaty we're talking about is the UN charter and, last time I checked, we're still in then UN. So congress superceded a treaty saying "no war in Iraq" while simultaniously being part of the treaty (presuming that the charter is a treaty in that sense and that we're violating it, which, as you correctly pointed out earlier, is speculative). We can't be bound by simultanious contradictory laws. So either congress effectively invalidated the treaty of the UN charter, in which case we're no longer part of the UN, or we're part of the UN, and thus still bound by that treaty.
Okay, good enough for now. I know there's some objection to the idea that the UN Charter is really a treaty, but I think those are the same people that think the Earth is flat...

Next question. If a law is unchallenged, i.e. the decision to go to war in Iraq, it's only an academic exercise to contend that the act is illegal. Is that correct?

Next question. If a law is unchallenged, i.e. the decision to go to war in Iraq, it's only an academic exercise to contend that the act is illegal. Is that correct?

For the most part, yes. I mean obviously the theoretical arguments could become practical arguments if this ever got to an appropriate court. At the end of the day, it's either legal, or it is illegal, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

However its legality or illegality is rather irrelevant in a practical sense, until an agent of authority declares it so.

As for the question of "is the charter a treaty" it depends on how you look at it. On one hand the charter can be the list of rules of an organization, and any nationstate wishing to be a member of that organization must promise to adhere to those rules. On the other one could see it as...a series of aspirational goals, a "mission statement". Something to be worked towards in the future, but not something 100% necessarily binding in the present. This might make it look something less like a treaty, and more like an...affirmation of intent, so to speak.

Which, in that case, would perhaps raise some moral obligations, but not necessarily legal ones.

Okay, good enough for now. I know there's some objection to the idea that the UN Charter is really a treaty, but I think those are the same people that think the Earth is flat...

Um...I don't consider the UN Charter to be a treaty and I know that the earth is round.

Absolutly, except you, once again, miss my point (you SURE you went to lawschool?) We haven't amended, revoked, or superceded the UN charter. We're still part of it. We're still in the UN. While a treaty is in effect it is binding. We can remove ourselves from the treaty or decide not to adhere to the treaty.

What happened here is analagous to Congress changing the tax rates in the tax code, while still keeping the rest of the tax code in place. It is not necessary to repeal an entire law in order to amend one provision of said law. Congress has not withdrawn the US from the UN by authorizing the use of force. It has simply negated the provisions of the UN charter that give the UNSC the sole power to determine when use of force is authorized.

Now, if the rest of the UN considers us to be in such violation of the UN charter that they want to kick us out, they are free to do so. But that has nothing to do with Congress' power to selectively repeal certain provision of the treaty.

Congress can not simultaniously be bound by contradictory laws. The Supremacy of Treaties clause in Article 6 makes it quite clear that when there are contradictory laws, the supremacy of the legitimate treaty trumps.

Congress is never actually "bound" by any laws it passes, as it can repeal them at any time. But, in any event, a law passed later in time governs over an earlier law. Therefore, Congress' authorization of force in Iraq trumps the provisions in the UN charter giving the UNSC the sole power to determine when force may be used. Again, the Article 6 supremacy of treaties clause is only intended to put treaties on the same level, vis a vis American law, as any other law passed by Congress. But the clause does not actually confer any special status to treaties. Treaties are, for example, trumped by any law passed later in time by Congress.

And he was not the only relative of mine that has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

My decorated brother has served in both Iraqi/US conflicts and Afghanistan multiple times. I do not agree with the invasion of Iraq nor the consequent imposition of a government run by America. I also do not consider the writer of the article or declaration to be somehow ineligible to voice his opinion because he is AWOL.

So your point is what exactly? That you are somehow better than those you conflict with? That your blanket condemnation of acts of desent have a single consequence.

So...what would you say if the writer had said that he was aware of the charge of AWOL and would serve the penalty if caught? That his desent was so strong that he was even willing to risk imprisonment. Not even risk. Face imprisonment.

So once more...your point is.....

Now you know what I am thinking? WOW! I never knew you held such power :rolleyes:

Yes, it's called "reading". Because you SAID what I pointed out you had said. Did you mis-speak then?

Yes, it's called "reading". Because you SAID what I pointed out you had said. Did you mis-speak then?

Basicly what you are saying is that I either agree with you or else. Sorry but I am not going to play that game.

Do I agree with the iraq war? yes
Do I believe the war was mismanaged: Yes
Do I support GWB? Not 100%
Was I looking for a different Candidate? Yes
Did I want peace before this war broke out? Yes I did.

Do I listen to soldiers who go AWOL? No
Do I listen to those who oppose this war? Yes
Do I try to silence them? No
Do I respect their right of dissent? Yes

Now that I answered many of these questions...

Basicly what you are saying is that I either agree with you or else.

No. YOU said your rational side would sound like what the opponents of this accursed bloodshed say.

Would I encourage him? No. Would I shed a tear if he did leave? No. If he wants so desperately not to be there, I don't want him there either. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I also don't think he's "beneath contempt" as you say. He may be a douchebag for leaving, but that's all he is, a douchebag. Again, I think his punishment should consist of returning any enlistment bonus he may have received and a less than honorable discharge.

Anyway, I think we've found the reason you feel that you have to believe this war is just. If my father had done six tours in Iraq I'd want to feel it was for a good reason too.

Agreed... Any serious soldier would not to serve next to someone who had no heart in the job at hand... Especially in any unit where you HAVE to rely on the guy next to you for your own survival... If someone who didn't want to serve on my boat didn't show up... Good for him, and even better for us...

No. YOU said your rational side would sound like what the opponents of this accursed bloodshed say.

No..I said I can look at things rationally.

No..I said I can look at things rationally.

"Can" being the operative word, perhaps? Hey, he set himself up for that one...

"Can" being the operative word, perhaps? Hey, he set himself up for that one...

Wow, nice move. o_O

Wow, nice move. o_O

*Bows*

For the most part, yes. I mean obviously the theoretical arguments could become practical arguments if this ever got to an appropriate court. At the end of the day, it's either legal, or it is illegal, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

However its legality or illegality is rather irrelevant in a practical sense, until an agent of authority declares it so.

As for the question of "is the charter a treaty" it depends on how you look at it. On one hand the charter can be the list of rules of an organization, and any nationstate wishing to be a member of that organization must promise to adhere to those rules. On the other one could see it as...a series of aspirational goals, a "mission statement". Something to be worked towards in the future, but not something 100% necessarily binding in the present. This might make it look something less like a treaty, and more like an...affirmation of intent, so to speak.

Which, in that case, would perhaps raise some moral obligations, but not necessarily legal ones.
I feel like I'm a little more educated... Thanks for the help.

While I'm not so hot on the idea of being dependent on the United Nations for decisions that ought to be the province of a sovereign nation, I do understand the concept of treaties, in general.

Like the man said in the Federalist #33, you can't just enter into a treaty and not have the full force and backing of the government. Otherwise it's just a bargain in good faith among the parties involved.

But, as you know, perfectly legal doesn't mean perfectly right.

That true but then...this is the military.

This is relevent how?

No, not always. We don't see this very often in academia, do we? Scientists aren't getting all dogmatic with each other about who has the best theory (granted, I mean for the most part doing so is frowned upon; I'm sure there are exceptions). It seems to me the issue isn't humanity, but rather our baser instincts. As humans we are quite capable of putting aside our baser feelings in a discussion. That is, in my opinion, a skill which brought mankind to believe that we have souls & are somehow different from the other creatures which inhabit our planet.

My point is this: There is no "conspiracy" of the side that disagrees with you. There are a spectrum of differing opinions. Just because a large amount of people seem to disagree with you, it does NOT mean they are organized in a group specifically to sway people's opinions against the one you hold. As a matter of fact, it may be your way of expressing your opinion that is pushing people away from holding the same opinion.


Hahahahah perfect example huh!

Basicly what you are saying is that I either agree with you or else. Sorry but I am not going to play that game.

Do I agree with the iraq war? yes

You supported the Iraq war? Did you support Hitler's invasion of Poland?
Do I believe the war was mismanaged: Yes

My respect for you has lifted.
Do I support GWB? Not 100%
Higher.
Was I looking for a different Candidate? Yes
Slighly higher.
Did I want peace before this war broke out? Yes I did.

Higher.
Do I listen to soldiers who go AWOL? No

And down it goes.

Now that I answered many of these questions...


Why pray tell do you not listen to AWOL soldiers? Is it because they dared to dissent Dear Leader Bush? Because thay dared disobey Operation Kill All The Darkies So We Can Get The Oil?

No..I said I can look at things rationally.

You need to provide proof of that.

You supported the Iraq war?

Yes

Did you support Hitler's invasion of Poland?

Strawman.

Why pray tell do you not listen to AWOL soldiers? Is it because they dared to dissent Dear Leader Bush? Because thay dared disobey Operation Kill All The Darkies So We Can Get The Oil?

Question 1: Because they violated their oaths by leaving their posts without permission to shirk their duty because they disagree with something.

Question 2: No!

Question 3: strawman and implicating racism which is not the case.

Why pray tell do you not listen to AWOL soldiers?

Because they have refused to honor their commitments. More importantly, they abandoned their comrades-in-arms in the middle of a conflict. That shows lack of character, and I don't see any reason to pay attention to someone like that.

Is it because they dared to dissent Dear Leader Bush?

If he wanted to dissent from American foreign policy, he shouldn't have joined the military.

In the US, there is a very ingrained tradition of the military being subordinate to the civilian leadership of the country. It isn't a soldier's role to decide whether or not a particular war is just- that is a decision for the civilian leadership of the country. When you join the military, certain of your rights are limited, partly to make sure that the military is unable to exert political influence.

Unfair to individual soldiers? Maybe, but we have an all-volunteer military. Nobody forced this guy to join the service.

Because thay dared disobey Operation Kill All The Darkies So We Can Get The Oil?

Now you're just being juvenile. Come back when you have an argument that is slightly more advanced than what one would expect to hear from a stoned college freshman.

Because they have refused to honor their commitments. More importantly, they abandoned their comrades-in-arms in the middle of a conflict. That shows lack of character, and I don't see any reason to pay attention to someone like that.

Again I say that is an astounding failure of logic. So somebody does something that you disagree with, which means to you any of their views are invalid?

So following the same course then, if I disagree with you I can stick my fingers in my ears, stick my tongue out at you and proclaim 'nar nar nar can't hear you'


If he wanted to dissent from American foreign policy, he shouldn't have joined the military.

Which translates as, people are not allowed to change their minds, nor their opinions.


In the US, there is a very ingrained tradition of the military being subordinate to the civilian leadership of the country. It isn't a soldier's role to decide whether or not a particular war is just- that is a decision for the civilian leadership of the country. When you join the military, certain of your rights are limited, partly to make sure that the military is unable to exert political influence.

Which translates as, soldiers are not allowed to change their minds, nor their opinions.


Unfair to individual soldiers? Maybe, but we have an all-volunteer military. Nobody forced this guy to join the service.

So you advocate unfair bias based on the kind of job a person does?



Now you're just being juvenile. Come back when you have an argument that is slightly more advanced than what one would expect to hear from a stoned college freshman.

Do you remember Tommy copper?

'Pot-kettle, kettle-pot, just like that'

Yes

May I ask why? Iraq had mothing to do with 9/11.



Strawman.

How is it a strawman? Hitler invaded Poland illegaly, Bush invaded Iraq illegaly. Or do you think the USA is above international law?


Question 1: Because they violated their oaths by leaving their posts without permission to shirk their duty because they disagree with something.

That doesnt invalidate their opinions. He went AWOL because he doesnt want to be part of Bush's illegal war.

Question 2: No!

Why then?

Question 3: strawman and implicating racism which is not the case.

When was the last time Bush bomed a country with white people. And it was about the oil, it had nothing to do with freedom in Iraq. The USA had no problems with Saddam back in the 1980's. The only reason he is a threat now is because he doesnt want to play ball with them anymore.

Because they have refused to honor their commitments. More importantly, they abandoned their comrades-in-arms in the middle of a conflict. That shows lack of character, and I don't see any reason to pay attention to someone like that.

Au contraire, it shows a great deal of character. A lot more than you'll ever have. Having the guts to stand up to Bush's junta and say 'No, I will not be another name on a list of people who have died so the US can have cheaper oil!'



If he wanted to dissent from American foreign policy, he shouldn't have joined the military.

You mean people are not allowed to change their opinions?

In the US, there is a very ingrained tradition of the military being subordinate to the civilian leadership of the country. It isn't a soldier's role to decide whether or not a particular war is just- that is a decision for the civilian leadership of the country. When you join the military, certain of your rights are limited, partly to make sure that the military is unable to exert political influence.

Unfair to individual soldiers? Maybe, but we have an all-volunteer military. Nobody forced this guy to join the service.

No, but someone was forcing him to take part in an illegal war.



Now you're just being juvenile. Come back when you have an argument that is slightly more advanced than what one would expect to hear from a stoned college freshman.


I've never smoked pot in my life. Fail.

Au contraire, it shows a great deal of character. A lot more than you'll ever have.

This sounds like something New Tacoma would say.

Having the guts to stand up to Bush's junta and say 'No, I will not be another name on a list of people who have died so the US can have cheaper oil!'

Oh brother.

You mean people are not allowed to change their opinions?

They can have their own opinions but when called to serve overseas, they are obligated to follow all legal orders from the president on down. That means following those orders even if you disagree with the war or you claim conscientious objector status.

No, but someone was forcing him to take part in an illegal war.

Only in your opinion is the war illegal. In mine, it is a legal war.

This sounds like something New Tacoma would say.

New what?



Oh brother.

Nice rebuttal:rolleyes:



They can have their own opinions but when called to serve overseas, they are obligated to follow all legal orders from the president on down. That means following those orders even if you disagree with the war or you claim conscientious objector status.

The war was illegal, so the orders relating to it are also illegal.



Only in your opinion is the war illegal. In mine, it is a legal war.


The UN disagrees with you.

New what?

New Tacoma. He used to say that all the time to posters who dared disagreed with him.

Nice rebuttal

It was all it deserved.

The war was illegal, so the orders relating to it are also illegal.

The war was legal so the orders relating to it are also legal. See I can do the same thing.

The UN disagrees with you.

And I disagree with the former leader of the UN. Besides. If this was illegal under the UN then where's the resolution condemning it and the resolution to either suspend us or kick us out. I mean...if the UN Charter is supposed to be followed to the letter then that should have already happened.

New Tacoma. He used to say that all the time to posters who dared disagreed with him.


I suppose he got tired of your ad hominims. So I guess its my turn to feed the troll.


It was all it deserved.

Deserved eh? You think its acceptable for your country to sacrifice its own countrymen and women just so Bush and his cronies can line their pockets?



The war was legal so the orders relating to it are also legal. See I can do the same thing.

You could but you'd be wrong.



And I disagree with the former leader of the UN. Besides. If this was illegal under the UN then where's the resolution condemning it and the resolution to either suspend us or kick us out. I mean...if the UN Charter is supposed to be followed to the letter then that should have already happened.

Because the UN are a bunch of moral cowards who care more about saving face than standing up to the US. As a result, the US thinks it can piss on the rest of the world. And they are right! Thank you UN!:upyours:

suppose he got tired of your ad hominims. So I guess its my turn to feed the troll.

Actually...everyone the board called New Tacoma a troll and you are acting just like him.

Deserved eh? You think its acceptable for your country to sacrifice its own countrymen and women just so Bush and his cronies can line their pockets?

Care to prove that they are lining their pockets?

You could but you'd be wrong.

Just like you are wrong.

Because the UN are a bunch of moral cowards who care more about saving face than standing up to the US. As a result, the US thinks it can piss on the rest of the world. And they are right! Thank you UN! :upyours:

And it explains why they are doing nothing about Darfur as well and why a coalition of nations are negotiating with Iran and why Five nations got North Korea to back down. They are cowards. You are right about that.

Edit: And the quote boxes like yours was his trademark as well.

Again I say that is an astounding failure of logic. So somebody does something that you disagree with, which means to you any of their views are invalid?

What it means is that I'm really not willing to listen to the opinions of someone who has exhibited such a massive failure of character. Why should I waste my time?

Which translates as, soldiers are not allowed to change their minds, nor their opinions.

Sure they are, they're just not allowed to go AWOL and engage in certain political activities.


So you advocate unfair bias based on the kind of job a person does?

Being a soldier is not just a "kind of job." People know going in what the rules are, and since it is an all-volunteer force, soldiers can't really complain about the limits to their rights while in the service.

Sure they are, they're just not allowed to go AWOL and engage in certain political activities.

Just to point out that the military is allowed to engage in political activities. However, they cannot do so while in uniform.

Being a soldier is not just a "kind of job." People know going in what the rules are, and since it is an all-volunteer force, soldiers can't really complain about the limits to their rights while in the service.

Well they can complain but there is not much they can do about it.

Just to point out that the military is allowed to engage in political activities. However, they cannot do so while in uniform

There are certain political activities soldiers aren't allowed to do at all. For example they can't join or even associate with extremist groups like the KKK or paramilitary groups like the Michigan Militia.

I have nothing to say about the lies of a coward.

Actually...everyone the board called New Tacoma a troll and you are acting just like him.

Whatever:rolleyes:



Care to prove that they are lining their pockets?


Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years
Published: 07 January 2007
So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the US and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for US purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary... It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically. The country is now producing about two million barrels per day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels. Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports is through the Shia-dominated south of the country.

Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven most of the educated élite out of the country for safety, depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and administrators it desperately needs.

And even the present stunted operation is rife with corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector-general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500 in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of $8,400.

"In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more money, just to be stolen," said Greg Muttitt. "It's another reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now."

Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil - it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy - control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves are in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation.

The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law.

The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.

Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration.

In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday, legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating the relevant paragraph with the note, "Some countries do not accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state."

It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in the final draft.

Under the chapter entitled "Fiscal Regime", the draft spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this.

"A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]." Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other foreign companies: "It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." The final draft outlines general terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard 12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies.






Just like you are wrong.



And it explains why they are doing nothing about Darfur as well and why a coalition of nations are negotiating with Iran and why Five nations got North Korea to back down. They are cowards. You are right about that.


What's your point?

Edit: And the quote boxes like yours was his trademark as well.

Who's? That New Tacoma guy? What is your fixation with him? Is he your lover or something?

I don't think anyone can morally justify taking an active part in the Iraq War, so on that note I support his going AWOL rather than being a prisoner of conscience for refusing to contribute to the prosecution of this war.

What it means is that I'm really not willing to listen to the opinions of someone who has exhibited such a massive failure of character. Why should I waste my time?

Fair point, although I would also call that a failure of your own character.



Sure they are, they're just not allowed to go AWOL and engage in certain political activities.

Semantic nit pickery




Being a soldier is not just a "kind of job." People know going in what the rules are, and since it is an all-volunteer force, soldiers can't really complain about the limits to their rights while in the service.

Really? And this is true of all soldiers is it, they all knew what they were getting into before signing up?

Whatever

True statement no matter what you may think

*snip*

Oh look. Spam! Yummy.

What's your point?

That the UN is not all its cracked up to be.

Why do you claim this guy sold his soul to the Military?

Lovely straw man there- do you stick it in your garden, or is it a costume for the season ?

Quote where I said 'he sold his soul' ?
He signed a legal contract , he knew what his contract entailed, and he choose an illegal way to get out of his contract for political gain.

True statement no matter what you may think



Oh look. Spam! Yummy.



That the UN is not all its cracked up to be.

Demosthenes would be so proud....

A noncom is allowed to engage in political concerns while not in uniform and not on base... Commissioned officers have more restrictions however. As a noncom, I could wear my "Clinton didn't inhale; he just sucks" T-shirt off-base...

I was very much opposed to the relatively minor use of force abroad when I was in, and am very much opposed to our major use of force abroad now... My position hasn't changed... Though I never did go UA (Navy equivalent to AWOL) for it, since I was capable of disconnecting my private concerns from my duty of service...

It appears this soldier could not, and wrestled with it for some time. While I do think he should be punished the same way any other AWOL soldier is (which means having a NJP and its normative sentence, not needing a full blown courts martial nor necessarily discharging the man), I do not see needing to go further past that.

Really? And this is true of all soldiers is it, they all knew what they were getting into before signing up?

As much as any other adult who signed a contract. You cannot join the military until you are 18 years old, an adult in the eyes of the law. Anyone signing up is given a detailed contract listing the rules of their enlistment.

Grownups are considered to be competent to enter into contracts. If they fail to read such contracts before signing, that does not give them an "out" of such contract.

If this was a guy claiming that he didn't have to abide by the terms of his mortgage because he didn't read the loan documents, would you be as supportive of his refusal to abide by the terms of such contract? If not, how is that case different?

What a scumbag. Nothing worse than these guys who let themselves be used as mouthpieces for these organizations in exchange for money. 1000-1 that he actually wrote that. That's got script written all over it.

True statement no matter what you may think


New Tacoma is your lover?



Oh look. Spam! Yummy.

Nice rebuttle. Dont adress the points just dismiss them. Typical neocon.:upyours:



That the UN is not all its cracked up to be.



Whatever, I'm done argueing with you. You want to suck Bush's cock then fine. It is scum sucking little shitbags like you that is the reason democracy is being allowed to be hijacked by a bunch of war mongering money grabbing neocons. You are not a true American, you are a traitor and a lair.


Have a nice day. And fuck you. :upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

What a scumbag. Nothing worse than these guys who let themselves be used as mouthpieces for these organizations in exchange for money. 1000-1 that he actually wrote that. That's got script written all over it.



Go piss up a rope.

1000-1 that he actually wrote that. That's got script written all over it.
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that he wrote it. It's really not very well written... it rambles around all over the place and the language breaks down in a few places, and overall it reads more like a transcript of a spoken rant than a carefully prepared script. Of course, that may well be the effect that the writer was aiming for, in which case well done to him or her (I suppose).

What a scumbag
That seems to be the prevailing opinion in the thread. It seems to have precious little to do with the topic, since the OP at no point asked for the residents of the board to pass judgement on the writer's character, but that's kind of par for the course on here. It does seem to me to be a little ridiculous that so many people seem to automatically dismiss the content of the letter based on personal revulsion at what the writer claims to have done (i.e. gone AWOL), but that's the world of knee-jerk reaction for you in a nutshell.

I can't find the name in any military locator service. It seems to me that a person so desperate for attention that he puts his letter on a zillion different websites would also make sure his bona fides are up to snuff, so his fellow vets can tell he's not a fake. Especially considering there's been a run of fakes already. Or maybe his name would appear in the news, somewhere, even a small, local paper "Home Town soldier is AWOL war Protester", that sort of thing. Nothing. Therefore, until I see something more, I see no reason to think this is an actual soldier, or ex-soldier.

Please add "please add evidence of identity" to the poll list. It is not possible to make an honest judgement with only a claim, no actual information.

Longhaul, the mention of wiretaps, lists of people's names, talking about the military an oppressive machine, this from a six-year Airborne veteran, meaning that he reenlisted? How he can't respect the military? Discrimination, Fox News? That's just a few examples.

What unit was he with? Paratrooper implies that he was with the 82nd. Only the second brigade was there and they weren't there for a full year, neither was any brigades from the 101st and none of them are called paratroopers anymore. And I just searched his name and see that he's saying that he was stationed in Italy. The 101st and 82nd have permanent bases in the USA, they don't get assigned to other bases. This guy sounds like a total phony.

This is textbook propaganda. I'd be shocked if he wrote any of it or is even a veteran.

I can't find the name in any military locator service. It seems to me that a person so desperate for attention that he puts his letter on a zillion different websites would also make sure his bona fides are up to snuff, so his fellow vets can tell he's not a fake. Especially considering there's been a run of fakes already. Or maybe his name would appear in the news, somewhere, even a small, local paper "Home Town soldier is AWOL war Protester", that sort of thing. Nothing. Therefore, until I see something more, I see no reason to think this is an actual soldier, or ex-soldier.

Please add "please add evidence of identity" to the poll list. It is not possible to make an honest judgement with only a claim, no actual information.

http://www.ivaw.org/user/560

James Circello
Branch of service: United States Army (USA)
Unit: 1st BN (ABN) 503rd IN, 173rd Airborne Brigade
Rank: Sergeant
Home: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Served in: 2nd BN (ABN) 503rd IN, 173rd Airborne Brigade, Vicenza Italy (2002 - 2004), Operation Iraqi Freedom; Kirkuk, Iraq (March 2003 - March 2004), 1st BN (ABN) 509th IN; Fort Polk, LA (2004 - 2006) 1st BN (ABN) 503rd IN, 173rd Airborne Brigade, Vicenza Italy (July 2006 - April 2007)

Is this enough to verify his identity?

I'll accept it. Though it doesn't seem the Army cares much. I wouldn't call three years since he was there a short time before going AWOL. Also, unless he signed a much longer commitment than most recruits for some reason, he had to have reenlisted since then as well. Attention seeker.

His arguments against the war are clouded by the other rhetoric.

Longhaul, the mention of wiretaps, lists of people's names, talking about the military an oppressive machine, this from a six-year Airborne veteran, meaning that he reenlisted? How he can't respect the military? Discrimination, Fox News? That's just a few examples.

What unit was he with? Paratrooper implies that he was with the 82nd. Only the second brigade was there and they weren't there for a full year, neither was any brigades from the 101st and none of them are called paratroopers anymore.

This is textbook propaganda. I'd be shocked if he wrote any of it.
You may well be right. Indeed, if Mott's post above is anything to go by, he may not even exist. (edit: Gift-of-god seems to have covered that in post #323)

Would it somehow carry more weight if it could be conclusively proved that it had been written by an active member of the forces, rather than someone who had gone AWOL?

Does the writer honestly believe that declaring that they had gone AWOL might somehow sway others to his cause? If so, it seems naive for them to believe that that might have been the case. The reactive rejection of anything he has to say (on the basis that he is a traitor/coward/scumbag/whatever) that you can see in this thread is, I am sure, pretty indicative of the reaction that this letter has received throughout the States.

It makes no difference to me personally whether he is an active member of the forces, a retired vet, someone who has gone AWOL or someone with no ties to any part of the military. It doesn't even matter to me if they are words written by someone else that he's put his name to.

It does matter to some people... I'm sure they have their reasons, and they're entitled to their opinions.

Oh, and define propaganda and then let me know what - in anything political covered in today's media - can be classed as anything else.

Cool

a map of the locations of Iraqi Veterans against the war who opted to share where they were from and you can see their profiles with comments about they they are against it: http://www.ivaw.org/map/user

Some hotties too! :D

I'll accept it. Though it doesn't seem the Army cares much. I wouldn't call three years since he was there a short time before going AWOL. Also, unless he signed a much longer commitment than most recruits for some reason, he had to have reenlisted since then as well. Attention seeker.

His arguments against the war are clouded by the other rhetoric.

So anyone who fights for a cause publicly is an attention seeker?

If someone does something you don't consider right, it invalidates everything they say? Why/how? Attack the argument if you can.

Plus the guy is standing up against the govt to try to better it - not a traitor or a coward (for those of you who say otherwise) especially seeing as he isn't hiding to get out of punishment.

A lot of people will use situations like this to become celebrities. Cindy Sheehan being a good example. And yes, people should question their motives.

And saying you are opposed to the war is one thing. But ranting on about Fox News, wiretaps and etc... That sends the message that you are being used as a mouthpiece, not just some soldier who doesn't want to involved in an unjust war.

And anyone that has joined the military in the over thirty years since the draft was ended, has known that if they ever see any action, it's not going to be in a world war, it's going to be in conflicts like Iraq or Somalia. Going AWOL or deserting is not something that should ever be defended.

There's nothing wrong in gaining celebrity status and using that to put more power behind something you believe in. Media is power. It's smart to use it.

I wish all of our soldiers who didn't believe in the Iraq conflict went AWOL. Dissent is patriotic. It's quite courageous to risk your freedom for something you strongly believe in.

Also, FOX news is the right-wings governments mouthpiece. Nothing wrong with harping on that point over and over. It's not like it's untrue.

Going AWOL or deserting is not something that should ever be defended.

The US military exists to DEFEND your country, not rape others.

And anyone that has joined the military in the over thirty years since the draft was ended, has known that if they ever see any action, it's not going to be in a world war, it's going to be in conflicts like Iraq or Somalia. Going AWOL or deserting is not something that should ever be defended.

I advocated to our skipper, CDR Correll, that we should paint our sub black and white, with block lettering reading "POLICE", and install a siren on top of the fairwater.