Free Dating Site    

I, however, respect what he has done in standing up for what he believes in, so long as he is willing to pay the price.

You did take swear in to follow the Commander in Chief if you agree with his views, if you liked him, if he was a Democrate, Republican or a Monkey!

If you are reading this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, Thank A Soilder!!!!

Totally false. Soldiers (and officers) take an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution. Not the President/Commander-in-Chief.

"If you are reading this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, Thank A Soilder!!!!"
-------------------------------------

How sad, war talk BS, you really need to get some focus.

"Totally false. Soldiers (and officers) take an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution. Not the President/Commander-in-Chief."
--------------------------------------

Well said, time to make sure it dosn't get changed any more !

What a bunch of friggin BS to the response in the first quote and to the "" part in the second quote.

If it wasn't for our Military, we would be speaking a different primary language. Russian comes to mind... German comes to mind.... Japanese comes to mind. I have zero desire to have to learn ANY other language in order to reside in the USA and that include Arabic, Jewish, etc. etc..

And, if each individual Military personnel picks and chooses where he/she wants to serve according to their mood, versus that of the Congress and President... then, wave good-bye to not only English as a language...but, your Freedoms as well.

Comes to mind ? You'd have to have one for that to be the case.

"Clueless Alabama", indeed your profile sums your reply up well ...... you really need to stop watching Fox and read a book .......

This is the oath the "Coward" broke.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

What a bunch of friggin BS to the response in the first quote and to the "" part in the second quote.

The part I quoted from the oath of enlistment is "a bunch of friggin BS"? Military personnel don't swear to support and defend the Constitution?

It is an undeniable, incontrovertible fact. Nobody but a troll would try to claim otherwi..... oh, nevermind.

The Army Officer this thread is about...simply decided he didn't want to go to Iraq and opted out.

... if every Military Personnel did as this guy every time they didn't like the President/Commander-In-Chief

VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom,
responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which
made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United
States of America.

(Msg. 417) tort2 wrote:
Obviously, the officer in question forgot the oath he had to take upon volunteering for the armed forces:

I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country
and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their
defense.

VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom,
responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which
made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United
States of America.

(Msg. 422) tort2 wrote:
The officer in question does not enjoy the rights I or any non-military American enjoy.

Once you volunteer to serve in the Military you fall under the Military's jurisdiction and you are made aware of that fact before you join. And additionally, you are reminded of it once again when you take an oath (see above) to defend the US.

(Msg. 422) tort2 wrote:
In short, it puzzles me why Cotter and the other member continue to claim the Lt has a right to protest what they claim is an illegal war …

In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay to surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline. This demand was reportedly rejected. Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required. The UN weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC) headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC). The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA reported a level of compliance by Iraq with the disarmament requirements (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; IAEA) Hans Blix went on to state the Iraqi government may have been hoping to restart production once sanctions were lifted and inspectors left the country, as speculated by senior Iraqi officials and a prominent defector, Gen. Hussein Kamel. The attempt of the United Kingdom and the United States to obtain a further Resolution authorizing force failed. Thus, the Coalition invasion began without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, which United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan regarded as a violation of the UN Charter. (cf. The UN Security Council and the Iraq war) Several countries protested. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal." Proponents of the war claim that the invasion had implicit approval of the Security Council and was therefore not in violation of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to International Law, it is up to the Secuity Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.

In 2006, the Iraq Study Group reported that "while a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." The degraded chemical munitions which had been collected from around the country since the invasion began came to the public's attention in 2006 when Congressman Rick Santorum referred to them in a press conference, claiming that the United States had discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all. He cited a declassified summary of a report mentioning that "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been collected in groups of one or two from around the country since the invasion. The Washington Post reported that ever since the abandoned shells had begun to be found, "neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

In short, it puzzles me why Cotter and the other member continue to claim the Lt has a right to protest what they claim is an illegal war (it isn't, by the way-Congress authorized President Bush to invade and hasn't withdrawn that authorization-learn the facts please)...

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

The United Nations
The United Nations Security Council is the only organ of the United Nations that can authorize military action to enforce its resolutions or to reestablish peace in a region of conflict. It is composed of 15 member states, of which five are permanent. All five permanent members--the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China--must vote unanimously to approve military force.

The Bush administration forcefully lobbied the Security Council to pass a tough new resolution similar to the one it passed on November 29, 1990, after Iraq invaded Kuwait. That earlier resolution allowed UN member states to "use all necessary means" to force Iraq from Kuwait if Iraq remained in the country after January 15, 1991. When Iraq ignored the resolution, it paved the way for a subsequent U.S. congressional resolution authorizing military force and, ultimately, the Persian Gulf War.

The current Bush administration won a similar demonstration of international support from the Security Council for the possible use of military force against Iraq. UN Resolution 1441, passed by the Security Council on November 8, 2002, required Iraq to reveal all its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs to UN inspectors.

Soon after the UN weapons inspection team entered Iraq later that month, however, member nations of the Security Council began to stridently debate its findings. The United States and Britain contended that Iraq had fallen far short of the disarmament demands required by Resolution 1441. Other nations--France in particular--suggested that the UN should not rush to war, but should instead give the weapons inspectors more time to complete their mission.

The Bush administration argued that the resolution left the United States free to take military action against Iraq without a subsequent resolution specifically authorizing force. In a press conference on February 1, 2003, President Bush said, "Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution, it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein. But 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." Other member nations of the Security Council--notably France, Germany, Russia, and China--argued that Resolution 1441 did not provide such latitude for military action, and that any such action taken against Iraq would be illegitimate without a second UN resolution expressly authorizing force.

Finally losing patience with the pace of weapons inspections, the United States, Britain, and Spain proposed a second resolution threatening military force if Iraq did not disarm by a specific date. However, the three allies failed to win sufficient support among other member nations of the Security Council and withdrew their proposal before it came to a vote. After withdrawing the proposal, President Bush declared, "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." He then announced that the United States and its allies were free to strike Iraq without UN approval.

http://ca.encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/
Who_Can_Declare_War_Backgrounder_and_Research_Guide.html

Have a little patience.I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will present the full evidence after we have investigated all the sites, after we've interviewed all the scientists and experts, and this will take place in the coming weeks and months."

-Tony Blair

5/30/2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."

- George W. Bush, President Remarks to Reporters5/3/2003

It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction."

- George W. Bush, President Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio5/25/2003

"It is important people are patient and let the Iraq Survey Group do its work," a spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.

"There is still more work to be done, and we await that. Our position is unchanged."

- Spokesman for Tony Blair January 25, 2004

"The patience that they require for themselves now was not anything that they wanted to give to us."

Hans Blix

A leaked US intelligence report has cast fresh doubt on the coalition claims that Iraq had banned weapons which served as justification for going to war.

The secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons.

It is believed the report was widely circulated in the Bush administration at a time when senior officials were putting the case for military action.

"We could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction programme"

DIA director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.


"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

http://www.tomjoad.org/downingstreetmemo.htm