You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
-military contracts are a back door draft
-Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks
-the military is making you stay longer than your enlistment
-stop loss is not part of the contract
-you can be called back to service up to 8 years of your last date of service
-Stop loss is slavery
So either you are dumbass,you are liar and making **** up as you go along, or you are Jessie MacBeth(someone who enlisted but didn't complete basic,so he made up stories to milk pussyfist for fame).Which is it? You are on the internet posting on a public forum so anything you have previously said can be pulled up.
What are the forms? Can you provide some examples. If I can pull up dd form 4/1 then you should be able to pull up additional contracts. You should be able to provide some numbers seeing how the military gives you a copy of everything you sign.Those forms should be it your little do not throw away packet.First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged.
Considering the desperation of the anti-war left, one has to wonder if this story is true or if this is just a clerical error that was later cleared up."He had already completed in June the eight years he promised to serve in the Oregon National Guard. But the Army told him in October it would reactivate him under its stop-loss rule, sending him for the first time overseas, away from his wife and family."
JIM KLIMASKI: "That's what the contract says, real clear. Try it for one year, see if you like the Reserves or the National Guard, it fits with your schedule. And if you don't like at the end of one year, you are gone. However, all of those people who signed up under that program discovered that it was a fraud."
Online NewsHour: Soldiers Challenge Military's Stop-loss Order -- February 24, 2005
If his contract reads like everyone else's in the military then he is a fool full of **** for trying to make this claim.
"The policy has been controversial. Republican Sen. John McCain has called it a "backdoor draft" as have many Democrats."
Because a bunch of liberals say so then it must be true?How are you going to be running around calling me of all people a liberal and then try to cite what they say as some sort of proof? Yes I am calling a McCain a liberal, when it comes to republicans he is the worst one to try to use.That man has tossed more salad than a inmate at Rikers.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Hmm...so let's see...you re-write my posts to fit your agenda, ignore other relevent things I have said and use that to make several false accusations?
I cited those examples of challenging the Stop Loss to show it isn't as cut and dry as some claim.
Well, iam smart enough to not care what you think. The only thing worse than a flaming lib is a dishonest one.
I never said everyone who served were slaves. What is it with this constant lying? Is this the only way the pro-war crowd can discuss an issue?
The war was not illegal. We are sovereign not subservient to the UN global socialists/.
Never said we are subservient. But I do love how this exposes yet another hypcritical leg of the pro-war crowd. Most of you LOVE to scream how often Iraq violated UN Resolutions....so the UN is good enough to reference when it's convenient to defend the invasion but the UN is meaningless in any other respect.
Our own Constitution states all Treaties we sign are the supreme law so when we violated our Treaty with the UN we also violated our own Constitution.
"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;"
It also violated the Nuremberg Charter (Article VI) and United Nations Charter (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Article 39) and U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.
Even richard perle admitted it was illegal! Lol
(Our former US ambassador to the UN)
"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
"...there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance."
Why ignore what I said then put words in my mouth on top of that? Blimy. My argument is Stop Loss is a form of slavery. Can you understand what that means?
Yes - and, given that all of the members of the -all volunteer- military voluntarily sign a contract that includes having their enlistmenst extended as necessary, its an argument you cannot support.Blimy. My argument is Stop Loss is a form of slavery.
Last edited by Goobieman; 03-25-09 at 02:04 PM.