Shopping Cart Injuries Outpace Injuries in Iraq - Page 2

motivez · 08-08-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yes, exactly. They're choosing to go there.

Uhm, no they're not. They are ordered to go over there. They don't get to decide "Hey, lets go invade Country Y today!" and do it.

Some might want to go over there, but they enlisted to serve the country.. it just happens that Bush thought the best use of our military was to attack a contained dictator with a dillapidated army that posed no significant threat to the United States.

Scrum · 08-08-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

They can also opt out if they disagree with their superiors.

Again, they can opt out if they disagree with their superiors. The fact that they don't do that suggests that they are in agreement with their superiors. Henceforth, to them, they are dying for something. Don't be so pretentious to actually hold your subjective view on what is a reasonable acceptance of potential death and what is not. They accept the fact that they just might die when they go over there.

Opt out = dishonorable discharge and some time in the stockade?

Actually, can't they be shot in a time of war for not obeying an order?

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:05 PM

They can leave at any time before they ship out. They are free to leave the military.

Ardentfrost · 08-08-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

They can leave at any time before they ship out. They are free to leave the military.

This isn't true. I knew 2 guys in HS that tried to leave (while not shipped out). One decided against it once he found out the consequences (he was actually medically discharged later for a heart condition) and the other went on the run... has been in a military prison for 3 years.

SoFlaJDM · 08-08-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Safer shopping carts could help kids: docs

With more than 24,000 U.S. children treated for shopping cart-related injuries last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics says better designs and stricter government regulation are needed.

an injury from iraq can all too often mean a lost limb, or paralysis... i don't see what's so funny about all this

Scrum · 08-08-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

an injury from iraq can all too often mean a lost limb, or paralysis... i don't see what's so funny about all this

The only funny thing is that Ballz has, for a second time, tried to paint Iraq as a safer place for our troops to be than at home.

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Opt out = dishonorable discharge and some time in the stockade?

In most cases, it would be an uncharacterized discharge. However, it would certainly not be dishonorable.

A little note on this: one of my friends was in the Navy and said that she was gay and getting married to a girl in San Francisco. This was after sleeping with a multitude of her fellow soldiers, and it was well-known that she was full of shit. She did not recieve a dishonorable discharge. It's quite rare that someone will actually be dishonorably discharged.

Actually, can't they be shot in a time of war for not obeying an order?

We're not officially at war.

Scrum · 08-08-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

In most cases, it would be an uncharacterized discharge. However, it would certainly not be dishonorable.

A little note on this: one of my friends was in the Navy and said that she was gay and getting married to a girl in San Francisco. This was after sleeping with a multitude of her fellow soldiers, and it was well-known that she was full of shit. She did not recieve a dishonorable discharge. It's quite rare that someone will actually be dishonorably discharged.

Apples and oranges. Your little anecdote has no bearing on disobaying an order to deploy.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

We're not officially at war.

Tell that to the executive.

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This isn't true. I knew 2 guys in HS that tried to leave (while not shipped out). One decided against it once he found out the consequences (he was actually medically discharged later for a heart condition) and the other went on the run... has been in a military prison for 3 years.

It would depend on how long they were in there. If it was less than nine months, you can receive an uncharacterized discharge for not being able to adapt to military environment. He's in military prison for running, not because he wanted to opt out.

Ardentfrost · 08-08-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It would depend on how long they were in there. If it was less than nine months, you can receive an uncharacterized discharge for not being able to adapt to military environment. He's in military prison for running, not because he wanted to opt out.

He tried to leave (he was in the military for over a year), they said 'no,' he ran, they found him, he's in prison.

This goes back to you saying that if the people who are in Iraq don't want to be there, they can just not go. That is not true (well, it IS, but it's either Iraq or prison, and they'd be in prison longer)

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Apples and oranges. Your little anecdote has no bearing on disobaying an order to deploy.

They discharge soldiers if they don't believe they will be able to handle it in a foreign country. It's the military, not a prison.

Tell that to the executive.

I'd prefer for you to keep trying to convince me we're officially at war.

Ardentfrost · 08-08-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

They discharge soldiers if they don't believe they will be able to handle it in a foreign country. It's the military, not a prison.

I'd prefer for you to keep trying to convince me we're officially at war.

We're not officially at war and haven't been since WW2... that doesn't mean our executive doesn't lead our military into war-like activities.

Scrum · 08-08-2006, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

They discharge soldiers if they don't believe they will be able to handle it in a foreign country. It's the military, not a prison.

......

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Again, they can opt out if they disagree with their superiors. The fact that they don't do that suggests that they are in agreement with their superiors.

So if they don't like their orders they can just leave Iraq, and the fact that they stay means they agree with everything.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'd prefer for you to keep trying to convince me we're officially at war.

When did I do that? The military acts the same and we have given the executive war powers.

I would say they have found a way around an official declaration.
I'd like you to convince me otherwise.

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He tried to leave (he was in the military for over a year), they said 'no,' he ran, they found him, he's in prison.

They don't say "No," when you want to leave. They might've threatened him with courts-martial, but he can take it to Court of Appeals.

This goes back to you saying that if the people who are in Iraq don't want to be there, they can just not go. That is not true (well, it IS, but it's either Iraq or prison, and they'd be in prison longer)

I'd like for you to point out in the Uniform Code where it says that opting out, while NOT in war, will result in prison time.

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We're not officially at war and haven't been since WW2... that doesn't mean our executive doesn't lead our military into war-like activities.

This goes back to what's-his-face saying, "Actually, can't they be shot in a time of war for not obeying an order?" I was suggesting that wouldn't happen since we're not at war.

Ardentfrost · 08-08-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

They don't say "No," when you want to leave. They might've threatened him with courts-martial, but he can take it to Court of Appeals.

I'd like for you to point out in the Uniform Code where it says that opting out, while NOT in war, will result in prison time.

All I know is the example from the guy I knew... I KNOW he tried to leave before Iraq, and I KNOW he's still in prison.

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

How many of those shopping cart injuries result in missing limbs, amuptations, blindness, being paralyzed, etc?

hmm...satire.

Scrum · 08-08-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

This goes back to what's-his-face saying, "Actually, can't they be shot in a time of war for not obeying an order?" I was suggesting that wouldn't happen since we're not at war.

Tell that to troops who are under fire in a warzone. I'm sure they would understand that we aren't at war.

"Don't worry boys, we have been in combat for about the same amount of time as WW2 but this isn't a war".

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

......
So if they don't like their orders they can just leave Iraq, and the fact that they stay means they agree with everything.

Yes, in accordance with logic and our legal system. I know I'm going to sound like a broken record for this, but the legal phrase is, "Qui tacet consentire videteur." I might've misspelled some of that, but it means, "One who is silent is understood to consent" (no, that's not transliteration).

When did I do that? The military acts the same and we have given the executive war powers.

I would say they have found a way around an official declaration.
I'd like you to convince me otherwise.

If we're not at war, then the laws that are preceded with "during war" do not apply.

Dumpy Dooby · 08-08-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Tell that to troops who are under fire in a warzone. I'm sure they would understand that we aren't at war.

"Don't worry boys, we have been in combat for about the same amount of time as WW2 but this isn't a war".