|
Post by genesda on Apr 19, 2004 4:30:23 GMT -5
This is very sick that anyone would even think of something like this. I am praying for you! It's not sick, but a fact! After the 9/11 attack, there were some Democrats in Washington who were lamenting that the attack was after Bush was elected and that it should have been on Clinton's watch. Now, why would they want that to happen on Clinton's watch if not for political purposes?
You don't really understand those you support. I'll explain a little further. Liberal Democrats don't want americans to just die. If they were in control they would have stopped the attack as Bush would have if they could have. The difference is that Democrats would rather see the attack happen when it could have helped them gain or retain power, and if people have to die to acheive that, so be it. It's all about power and the end justifies the method. If you don't believe this, just look at the lies and distortions Kerry is spreading now. He has flip flopped again. This Sunday he now says the Iraq war IS NOT YET failure. This is after he has been running around calling Bush's efforts in Iraq a failure for months. He has no idea of what to do except call in the U.N. and turn over control to them. The U.N. runs at the first sign of violence, so if qwe give Iraq to the U.N. and get out, and the U.N. runs when violence occurs, where does that leave Iraq, and the U.S. effort?
Notice that the Democrats are not talking about the economy any longer. Why? The partisan media is also ignoring the economy. A good economy is bad for Democrats, unless they are in office. High unemployment, soldiers dying, bad stock market, high inflation etc., are all good for democrats.
Clinton over exagerated the economy by at least 30% while he was in office and hid the fact that there was a recession coming towards the end of his term. That way they could try to blame the recession on Bush. You really don't know who you support.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 19, 2004 4:48:38 GMT -5
...and search, and search, and search..... How long did it take to find the unibomber? Your partisan replies are getting silly. It is a FACT that they were there. Where are they now? Finding them or where they went is most important. [/color] George W Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, White House spokesman Scott McClellan I don't believe you. [/color] The maybe the banner should have said: "Mission (Almost) Accomplished!!" Whatever. At least it didn't say "Run out like in Somalia". [/color] That's not completely true. Al Gore won the popular vote by a large margin. He lost in the "Electoral College" by a decision by the Supreme Court. So I wouldn't say that it would make it an "acclaimation" or "rejection". We don't really know what the total national vote was. There were many close elections that weren't challenged. You forget. Algiore started the mess in Florida by wanting recounts of disqualified ballots, hanging chads, and the partisan supreme court in Florida tried to change the election rules in Florida in the middle of the election to HELP ALGORE!! All the U.S. Supreme Court did was tell them they couldn't! If it wasn't for Algore trying to steal the election, there wouldn't have been the chaos that was the result! [/color] You're incorrect. The mission to Somalia was always characterized as a police action for humanitarian purposes. The strategist in the Pentagon determined only "light" armor was required. The "mission" in Somalia was well underway when the Clinton administration took it over. Yes, it was well under way and Clinton CHANGED the objective that resulted in "Blackhawk Down". [/color] Again, the courtmartial was for disobeying a direct order. What he refused to do was immaterial under US military code. The order was to put on a uniform of another authority. The oath that a soldier takes is to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, not thje U.N.! The man ought to be hailed as a hero, and I believe his status was changed! That's the kind of crap you get with liberal Democrats and why they should be rejected at every turn by sensible people, and why there should be qualifications for voting, instead of just being able to breathe!! One correction. Many elections have been won by Democrats by people who WEREN'T BREATHING, like the presidency in 1960!! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 19, 2004 4:53:06 GMT -5
It just shows that there is no "ground swell" support for the job that President Bush is doing. The correct way to see this is Bush will win in spite of 9/11, a recession, and the lies that are coming from the Democrats. [/color] But it still is nothing campared to the political "war chest" that the Bush campaign has built. Kind of sad that an incumbent would need so much money to get his message out. Let's not forget, Bush has to combat the partisan media as well as the Democratic party. [/color] Why go to an entertainer for spin. Jay Leno, David Letterman, etc are much more entertaining. The difference is truth and proof of what he says! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 19, 2004 4:57:47 GMT -5
What you said here reminds me of the case of the female pilot who was discharged from the military for "having an affair". Or so that's what everyone calls it. I was at Minot Air Force Base when this happened. I remember seeing CNN come, etc. Of course I was still in high school and didn't care all that much, but I still remember it. Everyone thought she was kicked out for having an affair. What they fail to realize is that the affair was immaterial. She was kicked out for disobeying a direct order. She was told not to see him, she did, she disobeyed an order. What the order was doesn't matter, she disobeyed it. Sorry I can't remember the woman's name right now. It's been 7 years or so now. OY! I'm getting old. That was the defense at Nurenburg for the Nazi'z. They were obeying orders, anmd that didn't work for them, but now it must work here, right? Soldiers are not required to obey blindly. killing someone because there is an order to do so doesn't justify the act if it was done in a fashion that is illegal, EVEN IF IT'S AN ORDER.
The woman in the service could have avoided her problem and wasn't justified. The soldier who refused to wear the U.N. uniform was justified.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Apr 19, 2004 7:11:41 GMT -5
What you said here reminds me of the case of the female pilot who was discharged from the military for "having an affair". Or so that's what everyone calls it. I was at Minot Air Force Base when this happened. I remember seeing CNN come, etc. Of course I was still in high school and didn't care all that much, but I still remember it. Everyone thought she was kicked out for having an affair. What they fail to realize is that the affair was immaterial. She was kicked out for disobeying a direct order. She was told not to see him, she did, she disobeyed an order. What the order was doesn't matter, she disobeyed it. Sorry I can't remember the woman's name right now. It's been 7 years or so now. OY! I'm getting old. That was the defense at Nurenburg for the Nazi'z. They were obeying orders, anmd that didn't work for them, but now it must work here, right? Soldiers are not required to obey blindly. killing someone because there is an order to do so doesn't justify the act if it was done in a fashion that is illegal, EVEN IF IT'S AN ORDER.
The woman in the service could have avoided her problem and wasn't justified. The soldier who refused to wear the U.N. uniform was justified.
[/color][/quote] That's nice. My entire point of posting that was to show that people think they know why people get discharged, etc. in the military, but in fact, they don't. The point was, she wasn't discharged for adultry. She was discharged for disobeying a direct order.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 19, 2004 7:17:18 GMT -5
You're incorrect. The mission to Somalia was always characterized as a police action for humanitarian purposes. The strategist in the Pentagon determined only "light" armor was required. The "mission" in Somalia was well underway when the Clinton administration took it over. Yes, it was well under way and Clinton CHANGED the objective that resulted in "Blackhawk Down". [/color] [/b][/color][/quote] buddy of mine was there special ops. doesn't talk much about the rescue mission but let's just say - he's not a clinton fan. is however, a bush fan. he's also presently back "in action".
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Apr 19, 2004 8:25:54 GMT -5
Individuals who want in their own minds to see the US Military as "evil" will see the case of former USAF 1st Lt Kelly Flynn as an "adultery" case. These people will keep saying she was given a "less than honorable" discharge" because she committed adultery. They will point to a "double standard."
When Lt Flynn's "problem" was first brought to the attention of her commander, it was already a court martial offense. At that point, her commander did not confer charges. Nor did he impose "an Article 15" (limited, non-judiciary punishment). Instead, he gave her a second chance. He ordered her to stop breaking USAF regulations.
On follow-up, Lt Flynn willfully lied to her commanding officer by stating she had complied with his order. She had disobeyed his order. For this she was discharged. All acts of misconduct in the case had to a part of the charges. But Adultery was a minor charge.
The Media blew that part out of proportion. Once Lt Flynn allowed herself to be interviewed, taped and photographed, her career was shot. She chose to put her own desires ahead of the needs of the USAF and of her country. Even if she'd won her case, she'd been "black listed" and pkmtyolped over for key assignments, schools, commands, and advancement.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Apr 19, 2004 10:10:19 GMT -5
Concerning the case of former US Army Spcialist Michael New (Spc New) ...
It's not against any US law for US Military personnel to be placed under the command and control of an officer of the United Nations. There are certain requirements that have to be met before the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces (CINCUS) can deploy US forces to the UN. Bottom line -- Congress has to authorize it. The process is in place already. It's been done. It's going on right now.
Spc New claimed the order given for him to don the UN beret with UN insignia and UN shoulder bpkmtyolrard was "unlawful" because it violated Army Regulation 670-1 Wear And Appearance Of Army Uniforms And Insignia.
On the front of any Department of Defense (DOD) regulation is the "Office of Primary Responsibility" (OPR). That's the level within the DOD at which the regulation was issued. Those below that level must comply with the regulation. Those at or above that level may suspend the regulation (or just a part) with an order. So a company commander can suspend a company regulation, a post commander can suspend a post regulation, the Secretary of the Army can suspend an Army regulation, and the President can suspend any DOD regulation he chooses. Be clear -- I am writing about regulations, not laws. Congress pkmtyolpes military laws. The military chain of command authorizes regulations.
The order for Spc New to wear a "UN uniform" came from the DOD level. The Army Uniform Regulation was at the Army Headquarters level -- lower than the DOD level. Spc New's premise that the order was "unlawful" was flawed.
And it wasn't a spur-of-the moment decision. He was informed of the order on August 21, 1995. He disobeyed the order on October 10, 1995. In between, he was briefed several times on the lawfulness of the order. He was told it was lawful, "because the President says so, therefore it is." Which is the truth. He sent several letters up his chain of command, which were answered. Spc New just didn't like the answers. So he chose to disobey. The Army treated him as it usually does with all willfully disobedient soldiers. It gave him the boot.
The issue was not about serving under foreign commanders or being protected by the UN or the Geneva Convention. It was a simple case of failure to obey a lawful order.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 19, 2004 20:23:20 GMT -5
This is very sick that anyone would even think of something like this. I am praying for you! It's not sick, but a fact![/color][/quote] No, it's sick.... [/color][/quote] After the terrorist attacked, the country was looking to the President for assurance. Unfortunately he was not to be found (perhaps on vacation again?). Since Clinton always seemd to be around during a crisis, after 8 years in office, people wanted to be asuured the way he was able to do. [/color][/quote] Let's not talk about liberal Democrats. How about the neo-conservative administration that underestimated the number of troops not only to win the war, but than to cut the number for the occupation? Or how aboout not providing body-armor for the troops at the outset, and didn't start sending it (wrong color for desert fighting) until after family members starting sending them for their own loved ones? Or how about holding back the armored humvees in Kuwait for the regular Army while the reservist serving in Iraq have to armor thie humvees with plate metal and bailing wire? It would appear to me that those currently in power are not very concerned about "body counts". One wonders if Mr Bush would have been so cavalier with the "...bring it on!" if his own daughters were on the front line. [/color][/quote] You need to listen to the whole message rather than just sound bites. [/color][/quote] You seem to forget that the action in Korea in the 1950's was a UN action. Also, UN involvement would not end US involvement. No one (no even the hated Kerry) has suggested that. [/color][/quote] I would guess because their constituents are more concerned about losing loved one in Iraq. [/color][/quote] Again, an odd take. But if that is your perception, the converse would be true. So what would be good for Republicans would be low unemployment, no soldiers dying, a good stock market, low inflation. So we can only get those things in a second term? Why not start now? Why wait? [/color][/quote] I don't know, I was pretty comfortable. And I wasn't even involved in a DOT COM company. [/color][/quote] And you don't know who I support either!
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 19, 2004 20:40:01 GMT -5
...and search, and search, and search..... How long did it take to find the unibomber? Your partisan replies are getting silly. It is a FACT that they were there. Where are they now? Finding them or where they went is most important. [/color][/quote] The "Unibomber" left a note and trails...and he was found by pure luck! The FACT is after he used them on the Kurds, no one had seen any since the early '90's. [/color][/quote] Actually it's not hard to believe. Just go to www.whitehouse.gov and look it up for yourself. [/color][/quote] Touche! [/color][/quote] Wow, and you say the liberals like to revise history. [/color][/quote] Steal? Let's not forget who was govenor of Florida? You should really read history rather than basing it on the movies you watch. [/color][/quote] Rather than me responding, I'll refer you to Scott's (TarueBeliever) post. Read it, you may learn something. [/color][/quote] I see you're not backing off fron resurrecting Jim Crow laws. What else? How about those that are blind or deaf? How about the elderly? Or how about those that are crippled? How can you be sure even the "educated" will vote your way?
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 19, 2004 20:41:42 GMT -5
What you said here reminds me of the case of the female pilot who was discharged from the military for "having an affair". Or so that's what everyone calls it. I was at Minot Air Force Base when this happened. I remember seeing CNN come, etc. Of course I was still in high school and didn't care all that much, but I still remember it. Everyone thought she was kicked out for having an affair. What they fail to realize is that the affair was immaterial. She was kicked out for disobeying a direct order. She was told not to see him, she did, she disobeyed an order. What the order was doesn't matter, she disobeyed it. Sorry I can't remember the woman's name right now. It's been 7 years or so now. OY! I'm getting old. That was the defense at Nurenburg for the Nazi'z. They were obeying orders, anmd that didn't work for them, but now it must work here, right? Soldiers are not required to obey blindly. killing someone because there is an order to do so doesn't justify the act if it was done in a fashion that is illegal, EVEN IF IT'S AN ORDER.
The woman in the service could have avoided her problem and wasn't justified. The soldier who refused to wear the U.N. uniform was justified.
[/color][/quote] Again, read Scott's post. It is very informative and may give you some insight as to how the military works.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 19, 2004 20:46:35 GMT -5
Concerning the case of former US Army Spcialist Michael New (Spc New) ...
It's not against any US law for US Military personnel to be placed under the command and control of an officer of the United Nations. There are certain requirements that have to be met before the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces (CINCUS) can deploy US forces to the UN. Bottom line -- Congress has to authorize it. The process is in place already. It's been done. It's going on right now.
Spc New claimed the order given for him to don the UN beret with UN insignia and UN shoulder bpkmtyolrard was "unlawful" because it violated Army Regulation 670-1 Wear And Appearance Of Army Uniforms And Insignia.
On the front of any Department of Defense (DOD) regulation is the "Office of Primary Responsibility" (OPR). That's the level within the DOD at which the regulation was issued. Those below that level must comply with the regulation. Those at or above that level may suspend the regulation (or just a part) with an order. So a company commander can suspend a company regulation, a post commander can suspend a post regulation, the Secretary of the Army can suspend an Army regulation, and the President can suspend any DOD regulation he chooses. Be clear -- I am writing about regulations, not laws. Congress pkmtyolpes military laws. The military chain of command authorizes regulations.
The order for Spc New to wear a "UN uniform" came from the DOD level. The Army Uniform Regulation was at the Army Headquarters level -- lower than the DOD level. Spc New's premise that the order was "unlawful" was flawed.
And it wasn't a spur-of-the moment decision. He was informed of the order on August 21, 1995. He disobeyed the order on October 10, 1995. In between, he was briefed several times on the lawfulness of the order. He was told it was lawful, "because the President says so, therefore it is." Which is the truth. He sent several letters up his chain of command, which were answered. Spc New just didn't like the answers. So he chose to disobey. The Army treated him as it usually does with all willfully disobedient soldiers. It gave him the boot.
The issue was not about serving under foreign commanders or being protected by the UN or the Geneva Convention. It was a simple case of failure to obey a lawful order.
Scott
Thank you Scott. I remembered the case, but could not recall the particulars. This will provide some insight to our "armchair warrior".
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 20, 2004 5:29:08 GMT -5
No, it's sick.... After the terrorist attacked, the country was looking to the President for assurance. Unfortunately he was not to be found (perhaps on vacation again?). Since Clinton always seemd to be around during a crisis, after 8 years in office, people wanted to be asuured the way he was able to do. LOL!! You're kidding, right? The only thing Clinton assured us of was, he could be counted on to know where Monica was! Everrtime there was a terrorist attack on Clinton's watch, we were arrused that those responsible would pay a price, which was never paid until Bush became president. [/color] Let's not talk about liberal Democrats. How about the neo-conservative administration that underestimated the number of troops not only to win the war, Underestimated? Did we lose the war? I believe it was won in record time with a minimun of lose of life. [/color] but than to cut the number for the occupation? Or how aboout not providing body-armor for the troops at the outset, and didn't start sending it (wrong color for desert fighting) until after family members starting sending them for their own loved ones? There was a good program about body armor the other day. Certain types that could stop rifle rounds wasn't available in pkmtyolm right away. Your guy voted against the money that included body armor too. Let's not forget that. [/color] Or how about holding back the armored humvees in Kuwait for the regular Army while the reservist serving in Iraq have to armor thie humvees with plate metal and bailing wire? There's always the unexpected as in every war. Mistakes are always made. That's not the same as a denial of armor like Clinton did in Somalia. [/color] It would appear to me that those currently in power are not very concerned about "body counts". One wonders if Mr Bush would have been so cavalier with the "...bring it on!" if his own daughters were on the front line. Typical liberal rubbish! The Democrats weren't concerned about "body counts" in Vietnam either because Kennedy wanted the US out of Vietnam, but after he was killed, Johnson escalated the war on the back of a lie. It's your Democrats that don't care about the lives of soldiers, not the Republicans. [/color] You need to listen to the whole message rather than just sound bites. Maybe you should do the same. The difference today is that the press is trying to destroy Bush and the same idiots were running around bragging about how brilliant Clinton's lies were while they were PROTECTING him. [/color] You seem to forget that the action in Korea in the 1950's was a UN action. Also, UN involvement would not end US involvement. No one (no even the hated Kerry) has suggested that. The world is much different today than it was in 1950. Kerry wanted to "share" authority with the UN all along. He still says this. [/color] I would guess because their constituents are more concerned about losing loved one in Iraq. Again, an odd take. But if that is your perception, the converse would be true. So what would be good for Republicans would be low unemployment, no soldiers dying, a good stock market, low inflation. So we can only get those things in a second term? Why not start now? Why wait? It is happening. Maybe you should not put so much faith in CNN or whatever liberal spin you're eating up.. [/color] I don't know, I was pretty comfortable. And I wasn't even involved in a DOT COM company. And you don't know who I support either!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 20, 2004 5:35:54 GMT -5
Again, read Scott's post. It is very informative and may give you some insight as to how the military works. That's like the Rcc saying eating meat on Friday wasn't a sin, but since the "church" says, don't eat meat on Friday, then disobeying the "church" is the sin, and many Rc people believed they would spend eternity in flames because they disobeyed the "church". I would never find someone guilty of breaking a false law.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 20, 2004 5:48:21 GMT -5
The "Unibomber" left a note and trails...and he was found by pure luck! The FACT is after he used them on the Kurds, no one had seen any since the early '90's. Are you saying Saddam had a change of heart and just destroyed them out of kindness? Your typical liberal response is just nonsense. [/color] Steal? Let's not forget who was govenor of Florida? Yes, Jeb had one vote and I'm sure he voted for his brother. What's the point, or is there one? [/color] You should really read history rather than basing it on the movies you watch. LOL!! [/color] I see you're not backing off fron resurrecting Jim Crow laws. What else? How about those that are blind or deaf? How about the elderly? Or how about those that are crippled? How can you be sure even the "educated" will vote your way? Jim Crow? What is wrong with having an educated voting public? Oh! That would spell doom for Democrats, right. Democrats need people who vote for a candidate simply because they get recomendations from other liberals by people who don't follow what's happening, as is the case now. Without the vote of those who vote for who they are told to vote for, Democrats wouldn't stand a chance except in the liberal Northeast. This is in evidence by the continued support for Kennedy and Kerry.
Kerry's still running around accusing Republicans of challenging his "patriotism" when all that is being challenged is his decision making abilities. I guess that's considered as patriotism by him. Then again, that's the same tactic you used when you were distorting what I said about military service.
[/color]
|
|