| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2006 09:20:31 PM |
| Object: |
The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining
the army to
fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." -
Charles Rangel
.
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
25 Dec 2006 02:49:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:17:21 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:53:43 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Those who have served with honor rarely use their service as a bragging
and personal denigration tool.
Unless there's a requirement that it be made public.
Clearly you and Homu are not honorable.
We are Not Honorable because we Have served and acknowledge that we
have?
You have an Odd take on Honor.
As he does on courage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
25 Dec 2006 03:50:59 PM |
|
|
Carl Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:17:21 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:53:43 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Those who have served with honor rarely use their service as a bragging
and personal denigration tool.
Unless there's a requirement that it be made public.
Clearly you and Homu are not honorable.
We are Not Honorable because we Have served and acknowledge that we
have?
You have an Odd take on Honor.
As he does on courage.
And you and Homu dishonor yourselves in using your service to this
nation as a tool to denigrate those who have not and in bragging
publicly of your accomplishments.
You're both two very insecure, immature little pricks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
26 Dec 2006 10:23:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:50:59 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Carl Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:17:21 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:53:43 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Those who have served with honor rarely use their service as a bragging
and personal denigration tool.
Unless there's a requirement that it be made public.
Clearly you and Homu are not honorable.
We are Not Honorable because we Have served and acknowledge that we
have?
You have an Odd take on Honor.
As he does on courage.
And you and Homu dishonor yourselves in using your service to this
nation as a tool to denigrate those who have not
Heh! Acknowledging the fact that one Has served in wartime has now,
within the Wintnutcase set, become a net negative.
I tell ya -- those folks will spin Anything!
... and in bragging
publicly of your accomplishments.
The point is, there Are some Actual Accomplishments to acknowledge.
The acknowledgement doesn't get to the status of Bragging, however.
They become merely a part of a person's own history.
You're both two very insecure, immature little pricks.
And the History really is something to be proud of.
It's more difficult to attempt to be proud of Not having such service,
seems to me. But then, amongst Wingnuts, who's to know what's
important and what is not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
26 Dec 2006 03:08:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:23:27 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:50:59 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Carl Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:17:21 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:53:43 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Those who have served with honor rarely use their service as a bragging
and personal denigration tool.
Unless there's a requirement that it be made public.
Clearly you and Homu are not honorable.
We are Not Honorable because we Have served and acknowledge that we
have?
You have an Odd take on Honor.
As he does on courage.
And you and Homu dishonor yourselves in using your service to this
nation as a tool to denigrate those who have not
Heh! Acknowledging the fact that one Has served in wartime has now,
within the Wintnutcase set, become a net negative.
I tell ya -- those folks will spin Anything!
... and in bragging
publicly of your accomplishments.
The point is, there Are some Actual Accomplishments to acknowledge.
The acknowledgement doesn't get to the status of Bragging, however.
They become merely a part of a person's own history.
You're both two very insecure, immature little pricks.
And the History really is something to be proud of.
It's more difficult to attempt to be proud of Not having such service,
seems to me. But then, amongst Wingnuts, who's to know what's
important and what is not?
Among wingnuts, the only thing that's important is being a wingnut.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
26 Dec 2006 03:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:23:27 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:50:59 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Carl Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:17:21 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:53:43 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Those who have served with honor rarely use their service as a bragging
and personal denigration tool.
Unless there's a requirement that it be made public.
Clearly you and Homu are not honorable.
We are Not Honorable because we Have served and acknowledge that we
have?
You have an Odd take on Honor.
As he does on courage.
And you and Homu dishonor yourselves in using your service to this
nation as a tool to denigrate those who have not
Heh! Acknowledging the fact that one Has served in wartime has now,
within the Wintnutcase set, become a net negative.
I tell ya -- those folks will spin Anything!
... and in bragging
publicly of your accomplishments.
The point is, there Are some Actual Accomplishments to acknowledge.
The acknowledgement doesn't get to the status of Bragging, however.
They become merely a part of a person's own history.
You're both two very insecure, immature little pricks.
And the History really is something to be proud of.
It's more difficult to attempt to be proud of Not having such service,
seems to me. But then, amongst Wingnuts, who's to know what's
important and what is not?
Among wingnuts, the only thing that's important is being a wingnut.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
26 Dec 2006 03:08:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:23:27 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:50:59 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Carl Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:17:21 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:53:43 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Those who have served with honor rarely use their service as a bragging
and personal denigration tool.
Unless there's a requirement that it be made public.
Clearly you and Homu are not honorable.
We are Not Honorable because we Have served and acknowledge that we
have?
You have an Odd take on Honor.
As he does on courage.
And you and Homu dishonor yourselves in using your service to this
nation as a tool to denigrate those who have not
Heh! Acknowledging the fact that one Has served in wartime has now,
within the Wintnutcase set, become a net negative.
I tell ya -- those folks will spin Anything!
... and in bragging
publicly of your accomplishments.
The point is, there Are some Actual Accomplishments to acknowledge.
The acknowledgement doesn't get to the status of Bragging, however.
They become merely a part of a person's own history.
You're both two very insecure, immature little pricks.
And the History really is something to be proud of.
It's more difficult to attempt to be proud of Not having such service,
seems to me. But then, amongst Wingnuts, who's to know what's
important and what is not?
Among wingnuts, the only thing that's important is being a wingnut.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
26 Dec 2006 06:31:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:08:57 -0500, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:23:27 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:50:59 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Carl Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:17:21 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:53:43 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Those who have served with honor rarely use their service as a bragging
and personal denigration tool.
Unless there's a requirement that it be made public.
Clearly you and Homu are not honorable.
We are Not Honorable because we Have served and acknowledge that we
have?
You have an Odd take on Honor.
As he does on courage.
And you and Homu dishonor yourselves in using your service to this
nation as a tool to denigrate those who have not
Heh! Acknowledging the fact that one Has served in wartime has now,
within the Wintnutcase set, become a net negative.
I tell ya -- those folks will spin Anything!
... and in bragging
publicly of your accomplishments.
The point is, there Are some Actual Accomplishments to acknowledge.
The acknowledgement doesn't get to the status of Bragging, however.
They become merely a part of a person's own history.
You're both two very insecure, immature little pricks.
And the History really is something to be proud of.
It's more difficult to attempt to be proud of Not having such service,
seems to me. But then, amongst Wingnuts, who's to know what's
important and what is not?
Among wingnuts, the only thing that's important is being a wingnut.
Sorry for the multiple posts. My news server has been a bit flaky
lately.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 06:10:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:08:59 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:52:39 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Carl Wilson wrote:
So based on what I've told you above, how is a soldier supposed to
intuitively know that H&I's are a GC violation?
Let's say a civilian village is involved...I think that might be a tell.
H&I fire is not done on a civilian village.
I submit it could be if one were in the targeted area.
Since clearly you are TFC on the matter, your submission is best
ignored. Other than to note that it is Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 05:57:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:55:16 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:52:39 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote:
Carl Wilson wrote:
So based on what I've told you above, how is a soldier supposed to
intuitively know that H&I's are a GC violation?
Let's say a civilian village is involved...I think that might be a tell.
H&I fire is not done on a civilian village.
At least not intentionally. If a small village popped up at some road
intersection after the map was produced and there wasn't any intel on
the area, it could happen but isn't very likely.
It's an area denial tactic, not a tactical strike on a point target.
Apparently he couldn't grasp that part.
You little War Weenies need some education, apparently.
But to really understand he'd have to join up, and we all know that's
not going to happen!
No wonder you get so lost in your own drivel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
21 Dec 2006 07:06:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in both.
He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war crimes. I
have repeatedly asked him if he understood the difference between
right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of course, dodging
questions, rationalizing and spinning are all normal behavior for
him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war crimes,
than that person can perhaps say they committed war crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it, however,
need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out an
order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the order.
They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing to
carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
21 Dec 2006 08:34:21 PM |
|
|
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in both.
He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war crimes.
I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the difference
between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of course,
dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all normal
behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war crimes,
than that person can perhaps say they committed war crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out an
order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the order.
They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing to
carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 03:55:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:21 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in both.
He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war crimes.
I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the difference
between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of course,
dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all normal
behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war crimes,
than that person can perhaps say they committed war crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out an
order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the order.
They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing to
carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
Yeah, it will do it all right. The "it" being getting yourself charged
with a UCMJ violation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 08:09:53 PM |
|
|
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:21 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war
crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of
course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all
normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war
crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out
an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the
order. They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or
Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing
to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
Yeah, it will do it all right. The "it" being getting yourself charged
with a UCMJ violation.
I did say RISK. The people who were trying to stop the war took those
kinds of risks.
The other option - less dramatic - would be go to the press after you get
out. Kerry did it - if a bit late in the day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 11:18:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:09:53 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:21 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war
crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of
course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all
normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war
crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out
an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the
order. They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or
Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing
to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
Yeah, it will do it all right. The "it" being getting yourself charged
with a UCMJ violation.
I did say RISK. The people who were trying to stop the war took those
kinds of risks.
The other option - less dramatic - would be go to the press after you get
out. Kerry did it - if a bit late in the day.
Risk hell. You disobey an order in combat and it turns out to have
been a lawful order UCMJ action is *assured*.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 11:27:28 PM |
|
|
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:09:53 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:21 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in
alt.atheism:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in
message news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were
war crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of
course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all
normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war
crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry
out an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing
the order. They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or
Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in
refusing to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a
violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a
reason for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't
do it.
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
Yeah, it will do it all right. The "it" being getting yourself
charged with a UCMJ violation.
I did say RISK. The people who were trying to stop the war took those
kinds of risks.
The other option - less dramatic - would be go to the press after you
get out. Kerry did it - if a bit late in the day.
Risk hell. You disobey an order in combat and it turns out to have
been a lawful order UCMJ action is *assured*.
Did I say anything about disobeying an order? In combat, or anywhere
else. You seem to be building a nice little strawman there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
23 Dec 2006 01:01:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:27:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:09:53 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:21 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in
alt.atheism:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in
message news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were
war crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of
course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all
normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war
crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry
out an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing
the order. They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or
Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in
refusing to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a
violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a
reason for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't
do it.
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
Yeah, it will do it all right. The "it" being getting yourself
charged with a UCMJ violation.
I did say RISK. The people who were trying to stop the war took those
kinds of risks.
The other option - less dramatic - would be go to the press after you
get out. Kerry did it - if a bit late in the day.
Risk hell. You disobey an order in combat and it turns out to have
been a lawful order UCMJ action is *assured*.
Did I say anything about disobeying an order? In combat, or anywhere
else. You seem to be building a nice little strawman there.
Yes.
Don Homuth:
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a
reason for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't
do it.
You:
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
Seems pretty clear to me that's exactly what you were talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
23 Dec 2006 01:53:43 AM |
|
|
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:27:28 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:09:53 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in
alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:21 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in
alt.atheism:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in
message news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were
war crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question.
Of course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are
all normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war
crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing
war crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry
out an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are
refusing the order. They may not simply state "I think that's
Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of
the Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in
refusing to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's
a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have
no plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a
reason for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't
do it.
Yes, it will. It will put you at some risk, but it will 'do it'.
Yeah, it will do it all right. The "it" being getting yourself
charged with a UCMJ violation.
I did say RISK. The people who were trying to stop the war took
those kinds of risks.
The other option - less dramatic - would be go to the press after
you get out. Kerry did it - if a bit late in the day.
Risk hell. You disobey an order in combat and it turns out to have
been a lawful order UCMJ action is *assured*.
Did I say anything about disobeying an order? In combat, or anywhere
else. You seem to be building a nice little strawman there.
Yes.
Decent of you to admit it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 03:53:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in both.
He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war crimes. I
have repeatedly asked him if he understood the difference between
right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of course, dodging
questions, rationalizing and spinning are all normal behavior for
him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war crimes,
than that person can perhaps say they committed war crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it, however,
need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out an
order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the order.
They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing to
carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 08:11:37 PM |
|
|
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war
crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of
course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all
normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out
an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the
order. They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing
to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
I DO know that. I was in the AF for four years. But note that you don't
have to disobey an order to go clean up the chain of command.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 11:35:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:11:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war
crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of
course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all
normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out
an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the
order. They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing
to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
I DO know that. I was in the AF for four years. But note that you don't
have to disobey an order to go clean up the chain of command.
In ground combat you just can't say, "hold on until I check with
higher to see if this is legal". You might have the time and luxury to
do that at some air base, but not when your butt is out in the middle
of nowhere. If you refuse an order during ground combat, you had
better know for *sure at that very *moment that you are correct in
doing so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
23 Dec 2006 01:56:44 AM |
|
|
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:11:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in
both. He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were
war crimes. I have repeatedly asked him if he understood the
difference between right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of
course, dodging questions, rationalizing and spinning are all
normal behavior for him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war
crimes, than that person can perhaps say they committed war
crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it,
however, need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out
an order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the
order. They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or
Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing
to carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a
violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes
those orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or
possibly even "mutiny".
I DO know that. I was in the AF for four years. But note that you
don't have to disobey an order to go clean up the chain of command.
In ground combat you just can't say, "hold on until I check with
higher to see if this is legal".
WTF. You played paint ball or what.
You might have the time and luxury to
do that at some air base, but not when your butt is out in the middle
of nowhere. If you refuse an order during ground combat, you had
better know for *sure at that very *moment that you are correct in
doing so.
I did not say refuse an order during combat. You're strawmanning again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 03:56:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:53:56 GMT, Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
Lobby was in the Air Force, and thinks that such things might be open
for discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 08:17:51 PM |
|
|
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:53:56 GMT, Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
Lobby was in the Air Force, and thinks that such things might be open
for discussion.
No I don't.
On the job - my job - I was REQUIRED to disagree whenever I thought a
procedure or other matter was not correct. Off the job I was expected to
follow orders without question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 05:34:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:56:14 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:53:56 GMT, Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
Lobby was in the Air Force, and thinks that such things might be open
for discussion.
Guess the Air Force does at lot of things differently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 06:06:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:34:27 GMT, Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:56:14 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:53:56 GMT, Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net>
wrote:
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
Lobby was in the Air Force, and thinks that such things might be open
for discussion.
Guess the Air Force does at lot of things differently.
Ever hear the discussion about the basic differences between the US
military services? It provides a good basis for precisely that point.
Given the mission -- to secure a specific building:
* The USMC will assemble a reinforced battalion, reduce the structure
with mortar fire, assault it frontally head-on, kill everyone on the
spot, then withdraw and wait for the Army to show up. All in 24-36
hours.,
* The Army will assemble three Infantry battalions, two Armor
regiments, and three Artillery units, reduce the structure to wreckage
with artillery fire from twelve miles away, send in the armor to
further the destruction and pound the rubble a little, then send in
the Infantry units, who will set up a security perimeter, send in
scouting parties, then an entire battalion, who will call medics if
there are any wounded and a company of forensic specialists to
determine how many were killed. After two weeks, they will then call
in the Combat Engineers to finish the demolition, haul away the
wreckage and prepare the site for construction.
* The Navy will go through the building and close all the doors and
lock all the windows.
* The Air Force will negotiate a long-term lease with an option to
buy.
I am fond of calling the USAF the world's largest para-military
organization. Reading their discussions on matters pertaining to
Ground Combat, you can understand why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ockhams Razor" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 06:48:31 PM |
|
|
In article <hbsoo25at3gti896vrjtccscg5t0706jbj@4ax.com>,
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
I am fond of calling the USAF the world's largest para-military
organization. Reading their discussions on matters pertaining to
Ground Combat, you can understand why.
Just a F*ing minute. Spoken like a grunt who can see only the fifty
feet in front of his weapon barrel.
Just why should the USAF be concerned with the minutae of ground combat?
They are there for the benefit of the "Ground Combat" personel. Ordered
to complete specific missions. That those missions may or may not be of
use is the responsibility of the "Ground Combat" commanders to
determine. One can assume that any mission flown was thought to be of
benefit by the ground commander, not the USAF (or USN Air).
Their missions are for destruction of specified targets. At the present
time, many of those "destructions" are carried out from many miles away.
The pilots are not there to see if a bunch of school children exit the
target.
That pilots might get back to some base and have dinner and booze and a
warm bed is not pertinent to this discussion. How many grunts were in
the "Hanoi Hilton"?
If you do not like being a grunt, join the Air Force.
--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 08:25:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:48:31 -0800, Ockham's Razor <Mencken@pdx.net>
wrote:
In article <hbsoo25at3gti896vrjtccscg5t0706jbj@4ax.com>,
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
I am fond of calling the USAF the world's largest para-military
organization. Reading their discussions on matters pertaining to
Ground Combat, you can understand why.
Just a F*ing minute. Spoken like a grunt who can see only the fifty
feet in front of his weapon barrel.
Just why should the USAF be concerned with the minutae of ground combat?
They shouldn't -- which is rather the point. Yet they do -- which is
also rather the point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 11:20:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:06:00 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:34:27 GMT, Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:56:14 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:53:56 GMT, Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net>
wrote:
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
Lobby was in the Air Force, and thinks that such things might be open
for discussion.
Guess the Air Force does at lot of things differently.
Ever hear the discussion about the basic differences between the US
military services? It provides a good basis for precisely that point.
Given the mission -- to secure a specific building:
* The USMC will assemble a reinforced battalion, reduce the structure
with mortar fire, assault it frontally head-on, kill everyone on the
spot, then withdraw and wait for the Army to show up. All in 24-36
hours.,
* The Army will assemble three Infantry battalions, two Armor
regiments, and three Artillery units, reduce the structure to wreckage
with artillery fire from twelve miles away, send in the armor to
further the destruction and pound the rubble a little, then send in
the Infantry units, who will set up a security perimeter, send in
scouting parties, then an entire battalion, who will call medics if
there are any wounded and a company of forensic specialists to
determine how many were killed. After two weeks, they will then call
in the Combat Engineers to finish the demolition, haul away the
wreckage and prepare the site for construction.
* The Navy will go through the building and close all the doors and
lock all the windows.
* The Air Force will negotiate a long-term lease with an option to
buy.
I am fond of calling the USAF the world's largest para-military
organization. Reading their discussions on matters pertaining to
Ground Combat, you can understand why.
Well to be fair most in the Air Force have nothing to do with ground
combat, so it might be hard for them to understand the mentality of
those that do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 04:05:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:53:56 GMT, in alt.atheism
Carl Wilson <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote in
<4qkoo2hatseqi4ab33qq8f4ool8peh4i28@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:36 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:55:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:29 -0800, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cxBih.5288$JL5.5199@trndny03...
He says H&I and FFZ were war crimes. He says he took part in both.
He rationalizes it by saying he did not Know they were war crimes. I
have repeatedly asked him if he understood the difference between
right and wrong. He dodges the question. Of course, dodging
questions, rationalizing and spinning are all normal behavior for
him.
If somebody follows orders and the orders turn out to be war crimes,
than that person can perhaps say they committed war crimes.
The act might well be a war crime. The individual doing it, however,
need not be a War Criminal.
However, there's a difference between -knowingly- committing war
crimes and -unknowingly- committing them,
That is correct. For an individual soldier to refuse to carry out an
order, they Must state a/the reason why they are refusing the order.
They may not simply state "I think that's Immoral or Wrong."
There's a plausible defense by saying "That's a violation of the
Geneva Conventions." But in order to use the defense in refusing to
carry out the order, first you must Know that it's a violation.
If you don't Know that, you won't refuse the order. You have no
plausible basis for doing so.
Sure you do. If it is WRONG.
Sorry -- but even for a barracks lawyer such as you are, that is
incorrect.
If you want to refuse a direct order, then you'd Best have a reason
for doing so. Simply saying "I think that's Wrong" won't do it.
What Lobby Dosser doesn't seem to know is that refusing to follow an
order without being able to cite a regulation or law that makes those
orders illegal is called "failure to follow orders" or possibly even
"mutiny".
But it is your duty as a soldier and as an American to know when you
must refuse to follow an order because that order is criminal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: The Despicable Liberal Quote Of The Week |
22 Dec 2006 04:36:59 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:sjloo2t4oht91pb1d98sark99karbq | | | | |
