Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
ashw_justin

National Guard: At least Canada is in N America...

Recommended Posts

He is either an idiot or a pussy. Technically he could swing for what he did. Doubtfull, but that should at least make him think about his actions; especially going back on his oath and his promise to the people of the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, too bad he didn't know that he was 'promising' to rot indefinitely in a Middle Eastern shithole in order to 'guard' someone else's nation.

 

Or are we going to construe every military operation we do from now on as 'guarding' the United States of America? I guess that makes sense if they just consider the entire planet to be the property of the USA.

 

Of course, when another country decides guard itself, our political geniuses will call that 'terrorism.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the Iraqi security forces are peforming is eerily like the ARVN. During that war (like this one, begun only because a President lied to Congress), there was a joke about selling used ARVN M-16s on the black market. The selling point was that each rifle was "never fired and only dropped once."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7444116.stm

 

In 2002, I joined the Indiana National Guard. When I joined, I was told I would only be in combat if there were troops occupying the United States.

 

Dude should have done some research before committing his life to several years of service:

 

Constitutional Charter of the Guard See for instance Article II, Sec. 2 and the National Defense Act of 1916.

 

Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the central gov't to send Guardsmen wherever it chooses, over the objections of state governors.

-- Limiting State Involvement in Foreign Policy: The Governors and the National Guard in Perpich v. Defense

 

Yeah and if dude still insists. He may get his wish: VOU934hhuEQ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, too bad he didn't know that he was 'promising' to rot indefinitely in a Middle Eastern shithole in order to 'guard' someone else's nation.

 

Well that is certainly his responsibility isn't it? If he wanted a good way to get free college or get pussy, there is another way; Its called the airforce. Stupid pussy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, too bad he didn't know that he was 'promising' to rot indefinitely in a Middle Eastern shithole in order to 'guard' someone else's nation.

 

Well that is certainly his responsibility isn't it? If he wanted a good way to get free college or get pussy, there is another way; Its called the airforce. Stupid pussy.

 

Ouch! :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...his oath and his promise to the people of the USA.

...are we going to construe every military operation we do from now on as 'guarding' the United States of America?

 

Well that's a question worth pondering, soldier!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He made a commitment, he should honor it. He wasn't joining the Peace Corps, for pity's sake. Apparently, his morals don't have anything to do with personal responsibility, honor, respect, commitment, or sacrifice; if they did, he would return to the U.S. and accept the consequences of his actions.

 

I believe there is a specific way to obtain 'conscientious objector' status; obviously, he wasn't smart enough to ask how to do that. Can anyone comment on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...his oath and his promise to the people of the USA.

...are we going to construe every military operation we do from now on as 'guarding' the United States of America?

 

Well that's a question worth pondering, soldier!

 

 

 

Glad you asked. He assumed to role of soldier. Whether it was to get free college, pussy or healthcare, the outcome is the same. He vowed to fight entities both foreign and domestic that his government deemed a threat to either the sovereignty of the safety of the United States and its citicens.

 

He gave up his right to question why; to quit his vow. If he had any qualms with this, it should have been addressed prior to swearing before an officer that he indeed upon penalty of perjury and death that he would accept that responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how it would feel to have promised one's life to defend America's God-given right to $2/gal at the pump?

 

This would all make a lot more sense if the White House would just admit that we have forcefully annexed Iraq. To them it must seem natural to use the national guard to defend a new piece of the empire.

 

McCain will have some timely political announcement that he will save us all from high oil prices by tapping into Iraqi oil, and continuing to intimidate the region with our military presence. Nobody seems willing or able to stop the U.S. from doing this, so it must be okay. That is until we push too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how it would feel to have promised one's life to defend America's God-given right to $2/gal at the pump?

 

This would all make a lot more sense if the White House would just admit that we have forcefully annexed Iraq. To them it must seem natural to use the national guard to defend a new piece of the empire.

 

McCain will have some timely political announcement that he will save us all from high oil prices by tapping into Iraqi oil, and continuing to intimidate the region with our military presence. Nobody seems willing or able to stop the U.S. from doing this, so it must be okay. That is until we push too far.

 

Wow. You certainly are one for hyperbole. No-one signed up to secure cheap oil, we will never tap into Iraqi oil and the mobilization of the National Guard is not a new philosophy.

 

2.5 mill bbls a day are being taken out of the ground in Iraq now. How much are we "anexing?"

 

It is quite obvious the tactics you use. Wanton use of hyperbole to support a point incredibly loosly tied with the subject matter at hand. Maybe if you threw in one actual verifiable fact in there we might not have so much trouble swallowing your other abortions of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it Scott is not a fan of the Nuremberg principles.

 

From what's been said, a fan of the Nuremburg rallies (in principle, at least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it Scott is not a fan of the Nuremberg principles.

 

glad you brought that up matt. He never fought in a war therefore he could not even utilize his belief taht the war was unjust to precipitate his premature departure from the armed services

 

"UN Security Council had already passed Resolutions 1483 (recognising the United States and Britain as "occupying powers" under international law) and 1546 (endorsing the creation of an Iraqi Interim Government). "

 

so... according to the law, he couldn't have even stated that he did so because he was morally obligated because he was "fighting" in an illegal war.

 

Furthermore, he never even fought. He was an MI geek who probably spent the duration of his service in AC; so there goes the whole "non-combatant" "consciencious objector" nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada is not a haven for draft dodgers and conscientious objectors. It's a haven for drug dealers, terrorists, internet criminals, and other villains. We don't want that kid.

Edited by giza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it Scott is not a fan of the Nuremberg principles.

 

This argument always gets trotted out during these discussions. Look, this kid could have gone about this in an entirely correct way. He chose not to do that. There are consequences (of which he is fully aware, I am sure) related to how he chose to exit himself from his commitment.

 

I don't really think that the "Nuremberg principles" apply, here, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it Scott is not a fan of the Nuremberg principles.

 

This argument always gets trotted out during these discussions. Look, this kid could have gone about this in an entirely correct way. He chose not to do that. There are consequences (of which he is fully aware, I am sure) related to how he chose to exit himself from his commitment.

 

I don't really think that the "Nuremberg principles" apply, here, anyway.

 

Considering that the occupation was rattified by the UN (at the time of his deployment) and his job was merely in MI, there is no way the nuremburg principles apply. Nice try though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No-one signed up to secure cheap oil
That's what I'm saying--one might feel conflicted if troops were actually being used to do this.
we will never tap into Iraqi oil
You guess no, I guess yes. Frankly, looking at the bigger picture, I'm not sure which would be better for the U.S.A. at this point.
the mobilization of the National Guard is not a new philosophy.
I understand that and I'm not really surprised that it is being done now.
It is quite obvious the tactics you use. Wanton use of hyperbole to support a point incredibly loosely tied with the subject matter at hand. Maybe if you threw in one actual verifiable fact in there we might not have so much trouble swallowing your other abortions of truth.
Truth has no meaning when speaking of potential outcomes that the future may hold. I invite you to call me hyperbolic and untruthful when/if we are out of the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth has no meaning when speaking of potential outcomes that the future may hold. I invite you to call me hyperbolic and untruthful when/if we are out of the middle east.

 

After reading your swill, it's obvious that truth has no meaning to you regardless of the conflict in which we are engaged. Carry on with your delusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from whether the war was illegal in the first place (and I think it was, whether the UN "ratified the occupation" later or not), I think he may argue that he thought that while in Iraq he was ordered to undertake war crimes or participate in crimes against humanity. (Though his statement as I read it contained the added idea that he had an obligation or right to approve the mission, something different.) Assuming he believes this to be true, would this justify going awol? I think that is the question here.

 

Clearly, we can't allow it -- there's no question about that. But might there be room to conclude that he may be morally justified to any degree in deserting if he thinks his service is furthering war crimes? Sure, showing up for duty, refusing, and sitting it out in the brig would be the manly thing to do. But what about fleeing to Canada and not being able to return at risk of arrest -- surely he's going to suffer some consequences either way.

Edited by mattp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, mattp. I think the question here is, did he violate his oath, which he freely took, when he signed up? It's as simple as that. A secondary question is, to address your other thoughts, did he act upon his convictions within the framework of the agreement he signed? Or, did he just run away without informing his superiors (which it sounds like he did).

 

"Manliness" has nothing to do with it...actually, I think you are on to something. A grown man, or to say a mature adult, would understand that actions have consequences and breaking commitments/contracts has ramifications. He clearly understood neither of these, and chose to act like a child (i.e., run away and hide). So, yes, the "manly" or adult thing would be to stand by his convictions, come what may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth has no meaning when speaking of potential outcomes that the future may hold. I invite you to call me hyperbolic and untruthful when/if we are out of the middle east.
After reading your swill, it's obvious that truth has no meaning to you regardless of the conflict in which we are engaged. Carry on with your delusion.
Where have I offended truth? Feel free to point out any of my delusions that can be proven false. I am just talking shit about what could happen in the future. You seem to think that I consider them reality. Who is the delusional one? :toad: But don't worry, I won't remember to make you eat your words if any of my 'swill' actually comes true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oaths that require someone to commit unconscionable acts under false pretenses were meant to be broken. Whether or not he ran and hid afterward is beside the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×