RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces

RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

sirsholly -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:22:34 PM)
quote: "he died a hero's death".....which is fairly fuckin' useless to you when you're dead. You want to know how fucking HARD it is to hear those words? I heard them when they handed me the flag that covered his coffin...right before the 21 guns that said another hero went home. His name was Mick AND HE DID HIS JOB!!!!! He did not run when it got tough. He paid the ultimate price, and so did i...BUT HE DID HIS JOB!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited for errors...my hands are shaking

Loric -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent He wants out. Why he should he have to stay because you say so - surely individual sovereignty is paramount (or is he owned by the state)? Would you stay in a job you had no interest in? If it's so important to some on here then take his place or send your husband - simple. It's easy to be philosophical when someone else is doing the dying for you. When he went to OCS and became an officer and signed the contract that ALL soldiers are required to sign as part of their service, he became property of the U.S. Government, and as such he is required to follow any and all orders issued to him by his superiors including the CIC, who happens to be the POTUS. That doesn't mean he has to like them or agree with them or even like the CIC. What it DOES mean is he is required to follow his orders. Period. If he didn't want to do that, he shouldn't have volunteered. Once you're in, unless you are medically unfit, IE seriously injured in the line of duty, or you are proven incompetent you're stuck with the job, though in his case as a commissioned officer he can resign...but it's obvious he doesn't want to, he wants to keep reaping the benefits without making the sacrifices. It's not like he was drafted as happened back during Vietnam. He made the CHOICE to serve. Now he's stuck with it and he doesn't like it. I say send his ass to Antarctica and let him command the research station down there. Of course...he could be tried in a Military Court under UCMJ for dereliction of duty...and they might even throw in something novel like treason and mutiny...two crimes which if My memory serves properly are the only ones that you can still legally be hung for in the U.S.

sirsholly -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:25:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: If it's so important to some on here then take his place or send your husband - simple. I did. He died of his injuries 6 years ago. Yeah and this bloke has chosen to not go the same way. Can't blame him for wanting to stay alive. shame on you

NorthernGent -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:27:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loric When he went to OCS and became an officer and signed the contract that ALL soldiers are required to sign as part of their service, he became property of the U.S. Government I'm not arguing 'the rules'. I'm stating that human life is far more important than some nonsense about contracts and property. So what he wants out. Let the bloke go and those who wish to die for the US government take his place.

slvemike4u -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:38:22 PM)
That "shame on you" Holly sent out was well earned.Your personal soveigrnty bullshit doesn't cut it he was/is an Officer(whether in the reserves or regular Army...the obligation in the final analyisis is the same)which he accepted of his own free will.By the way I hope you realise,even though I or no one else here will be "taking his place"....someone will have to. Holly I've said it before I will say it again,.....May he rest in peace and thanks to the both of you for your shared sacrifices.

Aylee -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:41:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: Orly Taitz, asks the court to consider granting his client's request based upon Cook's belief that President Barrack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of U.S Armed Forces. Hmmm....Obama has been in office since January and this is just come up since Cook is up for deployment. It would seem to me if he was sincere in his criticism of Obama he would have had an issue immediately, since Obama is the commander and chief and Cook is serving under him no matter where he is. Funny, since January Mr Cook has no problem collecting a paycheck for the service under the man he now refuses to serve under. Whether I agree with Cook or not, is was not in a position to protest the eligibility of Obama's election based on the law he is using, before he recieved orders for deployment overseas.

NorthernGent -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:47:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u "taking his place"....someone will have to. Did you fight in a war when you were 'active service' age Mike?

NWIndyMaster -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:51:58 PM)
I am a Soldier and have been deployed before. Refusing to serve when one has signed the contract with full knowledge of what that entails is beyond wrong. I understand not wanting to be there. I understand missing your family and friends. Wishing you were any place but where you are. It can often be scary especially when soldiers you live with work with and know personally die in your arms or you hear of them dying. Refusing to serve especially when soldiers look to you as an officer and depend on you shows a weakness in the chain of command that devastates moral. Those deployed do not need to be any more demoralized than they already are. Support our troops.

sirsholly -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 3:54:36 PM)
A sincere thank you for your service.[:)]

Loki45 -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 4:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I'm not arguing 'the rules'. I'm stating that human life is far more important than some nonsense about contracts and property. So what he wants out. Let the bloke go and those who wish to die for the US government take his place. Yeah...he should be let 'out'.....right 'in' to Leavenworth Prison.

rulemylife -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 7:33:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Why is it ok for contentious objectors to desert and run off to Canada, but not ok for the Major to challenge Obammy? I don't know, I would have to figure out what the fuck a "contentious objector" is first.

slvemike4u -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 7:37:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u "taking his place"....someone will have to. Did you fight in a war when you were 'active service' age Mike? You know what NorthernGent(a misnomer if I ever heard one)not that I think you have the right to ask that,not that I think you understand at all the point that has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions.....but I will help you out here.....with the math part I mean...I said I was 50...so I was born in 1959....now keep up with me here.....I turn 18 in 1977....Viet Nam is long over ...the draft is long over.Desert Storm is well in the future....need I say more. So the answer to your extremely rude and offensive question would be no....but I did join the Navy at 17...other than that...I' don't think I owe the likes of you any further information. I find it amasing that anyone who can project such a pacifist, enlightened attitude respect for human life.....can try to get his point across with such arrogance

slvemike4u -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 7:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Why is it ok for contentious objectors to desert and run off to Canada, but not ok for the Major to challenge Obammy? I don't know, I would have to figure out what the fuck a "contentious objector" is first. Thanks Rule,after signing on...and reading NG's nasty little question.....I needed the laugh......"contentious objector"....a particulary argumetive priest? [:D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 9:00:59 PM)
Holly, Im so sorry for your loss, and wish to extend my appologies for the snarky comments some have posted. Mike paid the ultimate price for freedom and i have no doubt at all this has been so very hard for you. NWIndyMaster, I echo Holly's words... its getting harder to find good men willing to serve their country. NorthernGent, Men used to be shot for deserting. Men used to be arrested for not showing up after leave. I cant think of a single human, american or not, male or female, married or single, who WANTS to Die for their country. No one wants to die, but, they sign up, they serve with honor and dignity. The President can change every 4 years. Who is in charge today, or tomorrow, doesnt make a difference. I grew up in the military. And I think its pathetic that a man who promised to serve and protect, who has sat back and collected his benefits like every other service man or woman has, now has the audacity to whine about who is President. Now, my questions for you, NG. Have you served? sorta sounds like not. Why would you believe an assignment in afghanistan is any more dangerous than anywhere else in the world? My father lost service friends when they went to jamaica on drug busts. The pentagon had a plane slam into it. There are no longer any "safe" assignments. So, in essence, what he is saying is "fuck that contract and the other men and women who follow it". As a major, his actions are deplorable. ESPECIALLY since he could have recinded his request. He COULD have changed his mind. He COULD have said "I dont want to go after all". He didnt. Instead, he went and found a lawyer and ..what? Took it to court? Guess what? The government voided the orders. He dont have to go. And, personally, any assignment he goes too now he will know that he is less than the men and women who serves under his command.

slvemike4u -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/17/2009 9:48:46 PM)
[sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]

NorthernGent -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/18/2009 12:10:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl NorthernGent, Men used to be shot for deserting. Yes because the army/any army can't have someone rocking the boat and threatening the wider discipline of the army. It shouldn't be a crime or shameful to change your mind regardless of what contract or oath you have signed previously. The reason why deserters were shot and the reason why the government counts on people like those on this board to help them enforce fighting is because soldiers could leave in droves when they actually get into a war zone (with all that that entails). quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So, in essence, what he is saying is "fuck that contract and the other men and women who follow it". And, personally, any assignment he goes too now he will know that he is less than the men and women who serves under his command. That's his choice - yes.

subrob1967 -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/18/2009 4:07:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I don't know, I would have to figure out what the fuck a "contentious objector" is first. quote: A conscientious objector (CO) is an individual who, on religious, moral or ethical grounds, refuses to participate as a combatant in war or, in some cases, to take any role that would support a combatant organization armed forces. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service. In the second case, the CO objects to any role within armed forces and results in complete rejection of conscription or military service and, in some countries, assignment to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service. Some conscientious objectors may consider themselves pacifist, non-resistant, or antimilitarist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector Misspelling aside, I'm sure your side had no problems with guys deserting to run off to Canada, because they only joined the military for an education, and not to fight an "illegal & unjust" war.

tazzygirl -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/18/2009 4:17:31 AM)
Yet you didnt answer any of my questions. We have gone from a society who could stand on its word and a hand shake to one where we are telling our children.. its ok, you dont have too if you dont want too God save us all.

slvemike4u -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/18/2009 4:21:32 AM)
So its "your" side ,and "your" side alone ,that has a monopoly on patriotism? Are we checking party affiliation at the recruiting stations these days?

rulemylife -> RE: Refusal to serve.. whats next for the Armed Forces (7/18/2009 8:25:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector Misspelling aside, I'm sure your side had no problems with guys deserting to run off to Canada, because they only joined the military for an education, and not to fight an "illegal & unjust" war. Uh...........your own link just gave you the definition of conscientious objector. A deserter may or may not be a conscientious objector. But proven status as a conscientious objector can still allow them to remain in the military in a non-combat role. Running off to Canada was more the province of draft evaders during the Vietnam War. You know, those guys "on my side" that didn't have the political connections to avoid the war like getting strings pulled for an Air Guard slot defending Texas and Alabama from the imminent Viet-Cong invasion. That is of course when he actually bothered to report for duty at all. Of course there were also legal ways to circumvent the draft as Dick "five deferments" Cheney can attest to. But he did say he had "other priorities" and that's sure a good enough answer for any red-blooded, true-blue, real American on "your side". I guess.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875