An American Hero

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

You sound like a fucking idiot. If you think Democrat three term Senators were reliant on Bush's intel then you're insane. So on one hand you think Hillary was "in" on 9/11 but then she needs Powell to tell her about WMD's. Whatever. LMFAO.

And as far as the RE bubble. I've been a tad bearish myself but I'm probably wrong. The home across the street from me just sold for 200k more than it did in 2004. Unimproved. The seller never lived a single day in it.....
More...

lmaoooo ummm... powell's little speech is to the UN.. dipshit.

the senate is made up of a bunch of bought off whores and they vote for whatever their masters tell them to vote for. there is plenty of blame to go around but bottomline all the evidence that the neocons manufactured to get us to commit genocide was false.

but wait.. this is coming from pabst who isnt even suppose to be on elite trader according to his "word." creating a new screen name has to be the biggest wuss move i have seen on here since candletrader pretended to be a muslim extremist. pabst.... go smoke your bowl mr jesuit.
 
Quote from Arnie:

Really? Then it should be easy for you to prove this. Just show me one time where Bush said this. Just one.
More...

i said his administration and then you repeat... "Just show me one time where Bush said this. Just one. " what part of administration do you not get??? go tie your shoe corky.
 
Quote from ratboy88:

yeah.. i forgot that they were going by the evidence i.e. the pack of lies the bush neocons had supplied them. look these guys are responsible for manufacturing weapons of mass deception in order to hoodwink idiots like you to support them. doesnt make it legal now does it.
More...

Geezuz! I can't believe you trotted out this moron George Galloway to make your point. Kicked out of the British Labor Party, this guy never met a dictator he didn't love, to include Castro and Hussein (even the Hussein boyz).

One thing that I don't personally know...is what happened to the WMD. It wasn't the only thing in the Authorization by Congress though. Read it some time....Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for years. At the same time, I know you don't know what happened either, nor does George Galloway.

Could be that the intelligence folks are just plain incompetent. The idea that something ends up not being true does not make it a lie. There seems to be no limit of stupidity for some of the government agencies and the administration itself.

That said, that's not what this thread is about. It's about a soldier violating his oath after he voluntarily joined the military...a court martial offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92.

It's about whether a soldier violating this Article can be a "hero". The answer is no. You can trot out one guy after another who claim Iraq was a lie, conspiracy, etc etc. Doesn't change what this soldier's duty was, and whether he violated it. Bottom line is that if he had any doubts about this he shouldn't have joined the military.

If there was ever a question in his mind that one day a superior might order him to do something he didn't personally agree with, he should not have joined up. No one held a gun to his head...it was all voluntary.

Now he's heard all the George Galloways of the world, and he has become a chickenshit, not a hero. It's really that simple.

OldTrader
 
He is a commissioned officer...so the oath quoted previously applies...and likely supersedes previous oaths. The oath of commissioned officers differs for a good reason, the assumption that officers have the ability to actually think and reason, not just blindly follow orders like non officers...

First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.
Quote from OldTrader:

That's the oath that an officer takes after he is commissioned. The first oath everyone takes when the enlist is the following:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. "

Later, when commissioned, they take the oath you posted.

OldTrader
More...
 
I see you conveniently rest on an ad hominem attack, rather than demonstrate where what was said by Galloway was incorrect...

Quote from OldTrader:

Geezuz! I can't believe you trotted out this moron George Galloway to make your point. Kicked out of the British Labor Party, this guy never met a dictator he didn't love, to include Castro and Hussein (even the Hussein boyz).

One thing that I don't personally know...is what happened to the WMD. It wasn't the only thing in the Authorization by Congress though. Read it some time....Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for years. At the same time, I know you don't know what happened either, nor does George Galloway.

Could be that the intelligence folks are just plain incompetent. The idea that something ends up not being true does not make it a lie. There seems to be no limit of stupidity for some of the government agencies and the administration itself.

That said, that's not what this thread is about. It's about a soldier violating his oath after he voluntarily joined the military...a court martial offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92.

It's about whether a soldier violating this Article can be a "hero". The answer is no. You can trot out one guy after another who claim Iraq was a lie, conspiracy, etc etc. Doesn't change what this soldier's duty was, and whether he violated it. Bottom line is that if he had any doubts about this he shouldn't have joined the military.

If there was ever a question in his mind that one day a superior might order him to do something he didn't personally agree with, he should not have joined up. No one held a gun to his head...it was all voluntary.

Now he's heard all the George Galloways of the world, and he has become a chickenshit, not a hero. It's really that simple.

OldTrader
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

He is a commissioned officer...so the oath quoted previously applies...and likely supersedes previous oaths. The oath of commissioned officers differs for a good reason, the assumption that officers have the ability to actually think and reason, not just blindly follow orders like non officers...

First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.
More...

So what's your point? That officers can disobey if they have a good reason? LOL!

Look, he joined the military, took the first oath, became a commissioned officer, took the second oath. One doesn't supercede the other. No one becomes a commissioned officer BEFORE they join the military.

OldTrader
 
Higher oath supersedes first oath...

Just as he no longer has to obey a lower officer...

Doh!

Your argument is still the same as the Nazis gave at Nuremberg...

Quote from OldTrader:

So what's your point? That officers can disobey if they have a good reason? LOL!

Look, he joined the military, took the first oath, became a commissioned officer, took the second oath. One doesn't supercede the other. No one becomes a commissioned officer BEFORE they join the military.

OldTrader
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I see you conveniently rest on an ad hominem attack, rather than demonstrate where what was said by Galloway was incorrect...
More...

LOL! Galloway himself is the master of ad hominem attack. Have you bothered to read any of his claims?

But believe me, any claim I made about Galloway I stopped way short of what could have been claimed and has been claimed. The guy is a complete moron.

OldTrader
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Higher oath supersedes first oath...

Just as he no longer has to obey a lower officer...

Doh!

Your argument is still the same as the Nazis gave at Nuremberg...
More...

There is no similarity between the Iraqi situation and the Nazis. Nor have you bothered to demonstrate such.

OldTrader
 
You are missing the point entirely.

The point is that our president is sworn to uphold the constitution. He is not a king, the constitution does not serve him or his whim.

You pointed out that there is a difference between the oaths for officers and non officers, and officers do not have to swear an oath to anything but the constitution.

Let me ask you this.

Suppose what Bush has done is in fact unconstitutional.

Is it then right for an officer to blindly go against what is constitutional simply because the president orders it?

You are missing the point, as at Nuremberg they did not go after soldiers...they went after officers. The excuse is that they were simply following the orders of a higher officer, or the Fuhrer.

For an officer to knowingly act against what he in his heart believes is against the constitution is right, simply because an elected official says so?

Man, this is why people have a problem with blind followers who view the president as king, and the military as his bitch to order as he damn well pleases..

Quote from OldTrader:

There is no similarity between the Iraqi situation and the Nazis. Nor have you bothered to demonstrate such.

OldTrader
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top