50 dumb o'reillys

oh really? you have a reliance you can cite?

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

TWO :1orglaugh :thumbsup in a row!

Ah the uncomprehending lame brain comprehends another lame brain's post.

If you guys boycott Canada, we're going to stop sending you our garbage.

You nailed it. :thumbsup

I saw that show too, and I did not hear him say that . . . . unless it was sarcasm. He sounded rather serious, aand he was right.

Canada's allowing deserters to hide there is complete bullshit.

I just did not know that Canada had anything to import other than those specials they have at McDonald's with their McMoose sandwiches . . .which are quite tasty. :thumbsup

Dude, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with Canada harboring criminals, ie: deserters from the US Army.

What would Canada do if we allowed Canadian soldiers to go AWOL and hang out here with no worries of being sent back?

should not be too hard to find . . . two American soldiers deserted and sought political asylum in Canada. Canada won't send these criminals back, and therein lies the problem.

not a news article - but it will get you started

LOL Let me ask you this... if ever you would enter the army... with the goal of defending and protecting your country... would you go to war.. risk your life for something that you do not agree with!? What if you thought that the president was dead wrong... what if you thought the president was launching a war for other reasons than the protection and safety of your country .. maybe for personal, political or economical reasons..? !? Would you be a good sheep and fight for him!?

Unfucking believable that those who dare disagreeing are considered criminals.... For fuck sakes... send them in afganistan if they dont agree with the Iraq war... or make them give you half of their past salaries or something... but forcing them to fight !?...lol

They swear an OATH...which denies them any right to disagree. They are not considered to be criminals...they are criminals. They will not be made to fight. For violating their oath they will be dishonorably discharged with a forfieture of all pay and benefits...placed in prison...and will pay the consequences,,, for the remainder of their life...that a dishonorable discharge brings to it.

theKing:

As you say, who gives a shit what O'Reilly says?? You watch too much TV there along with the rest of the brain dumbed! :1orglaugh

Hate to say it - but that sadly sums up the US. Say "Boo!" and you are a "criminal" or "unpatriotic". "Cummon guys - you swore and OATH to do *everything* you are told whether you agree or not and whether the action is criminal or not!" Nice OATH!! One for the brain dumbed again. I LIKE this "land of the free" :thumbsup

theking:

But on the other hand - we need to keep the prisons full don't we King? :winkwink:

I will determine how much TV I choose to watch...or not watch...not you...thank you very much.

In the US...as in any other country with law...you are a criminal when you violate a law. The individual does not have the previlige of picking and choosing which law that agree with and which law they do not agree with. In this country if you do not like a law...you do have the previlige of becoming an activist and make the attempt to overturn a law or modify a law.

To violate an OATH is worse than violating ones word...but the degree is negligible...and to violate ones word makes one a low life...from my perspective.

FYI...a soldier is not required to obey an illegal order...but it is not the soldier that has the previlige of deciding what is illegal...so he damn well better have it right when he makes the decision to disobey an order.

theking:

Yea yea yea yea yea yea!

The usual bullshit. There is a quote for that - I can't be bothered looking it up, but goes like this...

The truth can be denied for some time by the use of words and adopting of attitudes, but in the end, it bounces back to a point where it can no longer be denied and carries no credibility.

Mmm.. you watch much TV king?? How big is that screen.. really BIG?? It's must be invading you a good bit to keep coming up with so much "words" of little meaning - else you were born into a police state with all the "polices" and baggage that brings with it.

Have another beer or something and keep thinking you are living in the land of the free. When in a rut, people ain't got a clue about much else - they would not know.

so, the trials after WWII? should soldiers take responsiblity for there actions, or do you think the trials were a witchhunt, and they should not (be held accountable)?

theking:

I can't be bothered .. but a parting comment :-)

SO... An OATH is expected to do "whatever" and "whenever" whether this is a criminal or not and over which the "oathee" has no say?? Excuse me... but that is too close to the Third Reich for me!!

Now I understand much - adolescent ain't the word.

Having said that, oddly, I have a fair respect for "real soldiers" and officers I have met over time. They usually had morals and respect of others.

makes you think about the southpark song blame canada

Of course soldiers are responsible for their actions...and if those actions are deemed to be illegal by the convening powers that be...then there is a consequence to their actions. I assume you have a point to make with the question...what is it?

theking:

Quiet ask you a question - you have not answered.

Should they be held accountable or not??

Fuck the "conveining powers" and the silly "words".

my point was in the question. are soldiers personally responsible for there actions? for clarity, actions that they were directly ordered to undertake?

by 'convening powers that be', do you mean those that in essence, "win the war"? are you in fact saying that war crimes commited by those who win, are somewhat irrelevant?

No individual has a say as to what law is legal or illegal. A soldier is required to obey all lawful orders and is not allowed to be the determiner of what is legal and what is not legal. The law makers make the laws and the courts determine if the law is a legal law within the boundaries of the Constitution. If a soldier makes the decision to disobey an order based upon his considered opinion that the order is an unlawful order he damned well better be right or the military convening power will punish him for refusing to obey an order. If it is determined that the soldier was issued an unlawful order the issuer of the order will then become the focus and will receive whatever punishment is deemed to be approiate.

In answer to the first question...yes...if those actions are deemed to be illegal...by whomever the convening power is. Whether it by by military court or as in the case of the aftermath of the 2nd World War...by tribunal.

In the case of the 2nd World War...if the Axis powers had won the war it would have been allies put on trial and the determiners of what was illegal would have been the Axis tribunal.

So...bottom line the relevancy or irrelvancy is determined by the convening power...be it by tribunal or by a military court.

theking:

WTF are you talking about re "no individual has a say"?? If I witness a war crime, I "know" it's a war crime because some sadist is stuffing a bayonet up and down some persons ass while another is delivering electric shocks. We ain't even thinking about US laws here - these offenses are above any US laws.

In effect you are saying a soldier does "whatever" he is told, whether this is an illegal or criminal act and has no say.

It follows on from that, that the same soldier can then be prosecuted for obeying this command and conversely follows that if his judgement is blown he can be prosecuted for not following an order to act.

That is clearly a situation which is bred by the military and could not be sustained in any court other than a military one. The irony is, these same "oaths" apply whether there is any "war" or not.

Clearly anyone suffering from enough "patriotism" to feel the need to join the forces under these conditions, requires medical help.

That's not to say I don't understand the reasoning - ie under battleground conditions. But hell.. that's the "rules" some make up because they have to jump off to war every few years. There is nothing much to say to that! :winkwink:

i don't agree with it in philosophic sense, but pragmatically, i completely agree with you. frightening (to me anyway), but dead on.

my brother is currently doing his Masters in History (specifically, cold war relations between the US and USSR), and as a result, we end up have conversations along this line regularly. History is much more of an Art, than a Science :)

quiet:

Choice!! :glugglug

It's all in the words and perception - usually the perception of the "victors" :-)

I think the USA should boycott every single country in the world and auto-suffice just like the old communist block use to do.
:321GFY USA.

When you enlist in the military, no one forces you to do so, you enlist with the knowledge that you may end up getting killed. It is a chance you take.

No one is forcing you to take the job. If you don't want to take this chance, go work at Walmart.

WTF good is it to have a voluntary Army, if the soldiers get to pick and choose which battles and orders they will follow?

Have you ever heard of any army, anywhere that did not expect you to follow orders?

I will ask again, what would Canada do if we allowed Canadian soldiers to go AWOL and hang out here with no worries of being sent back?

The only one that is "dumbed" here is you. No one forced anyone to enlist. What country do you live in? Is your military set up so that if a soldier does not agree with the order he has been given he does not have to do it?

I think not. dumbass

I don't think you will find many privates, corporals and sergants that were put on trial. Only the uppper level command, unless they did something that was obviously something that was their own decision to do.

The soldiers in question were not ordered to do anything criminal, so what is your point? They became criminals when they went AWOL, just like with every other military on the face of the earth

Ya take back your criminals,we don't need them:BangBang:

send them back, we will gladly take them

Our government has it's head up their ass most of the time anyways.No matter who is in charge we are fucked

Thats it "VOLUNTARY" ! Whats the point of forcing anyone? Cant you find enough people that will VOLONTARILY go fight for you assumning that is for defending and portecting your country? What are you afraid that you need to force people? Yes its true... there's a salary issue... Take it all back if needed.. or 85%... But to put them in jail, for a long time, as worthless criminals!? LOL

That should be ANYONE's right to be able to decide if they'll go RISK THEIR lives or not for a war they firmly disagree with.... unless you can find me some better arguments that would justify such a measure....

:2 cents:

your army would be one fucked up mess, I swear some of you people live a life looking through rose colored glasses.

Think for a FUCKING SECOND!! If you dont want to fight... you lose all the money.. or around 85% of what you made in the military... then read my previous post... How will that be a mess??! what someone that doesnt want to fight would have to gain by joining the army!? Work for years and then get his salary taken away from him!?

To help you out... try expressing in your own words how it will be a mess.. that will force you to think...

Easy answer...this would cause a detioration of "discipline and good order" which is the backbone of any Army. Soldiers that take an Oath cannot be allowed to pick and choose what they will or will not do...period. Deserters violate a sworn Oath...thus are criminals...period.

You are really clueless aren't you? A volunteer army means it is not filled be a draft. People enlist voluntarily. It does not mean that they can come and go as they please.

Use your :2 cents: and buy a clue. While you are at it, find me any army, in any country, in all of time that has allowed soldiers to just desert when the going got tough.

I think she is a chick. . . maybe she can use that as an excuse.