Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #201
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Wow! Goin' old school with the Kids in the Hall. "I crush your head!"
    When I see people talk about people with "flat heads" my mind immediately goes to Mark McKinney as the "crushing your head" guy.

  2. #202
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I didn't rewrite your post, I do not have the ability to edit someone else's post.

    You charged me as saying:


    -Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks (Marine recruiting station under attack... again)


    I never said that yet you claimed I did to justify your accusations iam lying or a dumbass or something equally brilliant.



    You cited those examples because that is what you believed. Or you made up your claims assuming that no one on this forum had served in the military and therefore couldn't contradict your bogus claims. When you were called on your accusations you changed your story from there was no stop loss in the contract to its buried in a contract the size of a phone and even when you were shown that it is plain as day on your contract you are still trying to make the claim that stop loss is slavery.

    I never changed my claim. I pointed out it is not a static part of the contract. I also never said it was "buried in a phone book sized contract.". Then you accuse me of assuming nobody on here has served? Lol. What joke.

    Stop changing what I've said. Please.

    I pointed out those examples to show not all Vets agree with each other. You guys simply accuse anyone of being a liar if they don't agree with you. Congratulations on resurrecting Saddam. You walk in his shadow.




    You must care to a certain degree what someone thinks or you wouldn't be posting on a public forum for everyone and their mom to see.
    Once again. Reading 101. I never said I don't care what "anyone" thinks. I said I don't care what you think.



    I am no liberal and the only one I see being dishonest is you. Do you even have a dd 214?

    You misquote me, accuse me of changing claims, imply iam not a Vet, make several other false accusations then you have the audacity to claim iam dishonest? Lol

    And yes, you're a flaming lib like hellpuppy and goobie. You guys are just hiding behind a Conservative mask but you all support some of the most liberal policies in action today. Don't be ashamed to be a lib! Be proud!

  3. #203
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Cain't ignore no facts that don't exist.

    Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq, Iraq got invaded. End of that argument.

    The contract those sojers sign? That there be a legal contract.

    All Congress did was authorize use of force if necessary and even congress can't override our Treaty with the UN.


    Article 6

    "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;"
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html


    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.


    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...3/1120hawk.htm


    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...elligerent.htm

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...wilmshurst.htm

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...916illegal.htm

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    The problem some pro-Iraq war people don't understand is that just because could attack, doesn't mean we should have attacked.

    Yes, the war was not illegal, however, it doesn't make it right either.

  5. #205
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Show that the contracts are illegal.

    Under section 9(c) is where the SL policy may be found and it says:

    "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed
    Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends,
    unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of
    the United States."
    http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc...enlistment.pdf


    There has be no Declaration of War.

    I signed up in 1988 and Stop Loss had not been yet used so that could be why I hadn't heard of it until 90'.

  6. #206
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The problem some pro-Iraq war people don't understand is that just because could attack, doesn't mean we should have attacked.

    Yes, the war was not illegal, however, it doesn't make it right either.

    When we violate any Treaty we are also violating the Constitution.

  7. #207
    Educator bilbus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    10-22-09 @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    629

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    What is this? Strawman central? I never said:

    "...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?
    How is stop loss slavery? It's extending your term ... you agree to that in your contract. You are still paid the same as you were before extending.

    Without stop loss if new forces were not added to the theater their would be gaps. Stop loss prevents these gaps. Yes being called back due to stop loss sucks, but the alternative is much worse.
    George W. Bush is a liberal.

  8. #208
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by bilbus View Post
    How is stop loss slavery? It's extending your term ... you agree to that in your contract. You are still paid the same as you were before extending.

    Without stop loss if new forces were not added to the theater their would be gaps. Stop loss prevents these gaps. Yes being called back due to stop loss sucks, but the alternative is much worse.

    I already quoted the portion from the contract that states the enlistment may only be extended up to 6 months after the end of the war. That is very different than what is listed in Section 10. Moreover, since there has been no declaration of war how could any of troops be held under section 9(c).

    I fully understand the reaction to what iam saying because yes, when you sign the enlistment contract that section is in there but it has already been abused to maintain occupations in iraq and afghanistan. When you hold someone "involuntarily" that is slavery, period. Hiding behind of the technicality of the clause being in the contract (and on top of that ignoring it clearly says "war" and "only up to 6 months after the war ends") is befuddling.

    During WW2 there was no shortage of people signing up. Why? The war didn't need to be "sold" and this is an invaluable and overlooked event. The invasions of iraq and afghanistan have been accomplished not by the merits of the arguments put forth, but only by selling the idea of doing so no differently than how budweiser has to tell americans it is "beer" every thirty seconds. (Anyone who drinks real beer knows budweiser is chilled cat piss).

    My main point is this: the Stop Loss program is designed to enslave those who have enlisted to maintain policies that are without positive evidence. It's already been abused on about 60,000 brave soldiers so how many does it have to happen to before the coffee gets sniffed?

  9. #209
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    When we violate any Treaty we are also violating the Constitution.
    I am against the war in Iraq, however, the U.S. had the right to attack the way it did. However, I do not believe we should have.

    My biggest problem was the BUsh administration FOCUSED on so called "stockpiles" of WMDs that the Bush administration claimed. That is where I have the problem, Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs.

    When no Stockpiles of WMDs were found, THEN they fell back to other reasons as the focus. But before the war, WMDs were the focus, which was false.
    Last edited by TheNextEra; 03-25-09 at 09:24 PM.

  10. #210
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I am against the war in Iraq, however, the U.S. had the right to attack the way it did. However, I do not believe we should have.

    My biggest problem was the BUsh administration FOCUSED on so called "stockpiles" of WMDs that the Bush administration claimed. That is where I have the problem, Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs.

    When no Stockpiles of WMDs were found, THEN they fell back to other reasons as the focus. But before the war, WMDs were the focus, which was false.


    Anyone may have the opinion we had the "right" but from a legal pov, we did not have the authority to attack. It was the UN that gave us the authority in 1990, it was the UN that authorized the cease fire in 1991, and as I've already proven, no UN Resolution since then has granted unilateral military action to invade/occupy iraq.

    I'm not sure what the hurdle is here...I've quote the relevent parts of the Constitution, the UN Charter, a few legal experts, so maybe we could address those?

Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •