Thousands of Marines face involuntary recalls because of Iraqi Civil War - Page 3

DosEquis · 08-24-2006, 02:07 PM

What about this???

They agreed to defend our country from enemies, foreign and domestic. This conflict is not defending our country. Thats what their contract says they are obligated to do when called upon, defending our nation. The nation has violated that contract because this war in Iraq is not in defense of the united states. Doesn't that make the contract void at this point? The employer (us government) is not keeping their end of the bargain.

Ardentfrost · 08-24-2006, 02:17 PM

It is sad that they have to go back... well, it's sad for the ones that served time over there already and don't want to go back

But they did sign a contract, so they gotta do it.

DosEquis, your recent post is a great reason to not support the war from a broad sense, but I wouldn't want some peon in the military to be thrown in prison because he refuses to go to Iraq... at least if he goes to Iraq he'll be free quicker (as long as he doesn't die).

JaJae · 08-24-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

What about this???

They agreed to defend our country from enemies, foreign and domestic. This conflict is not defending our country. Thats what their contract says they are obligated to do when called upon, defending our nation. The nation has violated that contract because this war in Iraq is not in defense of the united states. Doesn't that make the contract void at this point? The employer (us government) is not keeping their end of the bargain.

"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).

DosEquis · 08-24-2006, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

"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).

Uh huh. And exactly how is the fighting in Iraq defending the constitution.

JaJae · 08-24-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Uh huh. And exactly how is the fighting in Iraq defending the constitution.

Read the part in bold.

smokie700 · 08-24-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Read the part in bold.

I was planning to post the oath also but you beat me to it.

SoFlaJDM · 08-24-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Uh huh. And exactly how is the fighting in Iraq defending the constitution.

Read the part in bold.

still can't find it

JaJae · 08-24-2006, 02:50 PM

It's interesting that people who don't understand the military or the oath are misinterpreting it as a tool to further their political ideology.

I'm sorry if you guys can't figure out the oath. But it is written in plain English. There's nothing more I can do other than to post it.

SoFlaJDM · 08-24-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's interesting that people who don't understand the military or the oath are misinterpreting it as a tool to further their political ideology.

I'm sorry if you guys can't figure out the oath. But it is written in plain English. There's nothing more I can do other than to post it.

ironic, isn't it?

what i'm saying is that it says obey the president after it says defend the constitution... when you said read the part in bold, you were equating the constitution with the prez

edit: a "brief stint" in the military doesn't make you an expert either

smokie700 · 08-24-2006, 02:56 PM

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.

Called Chain of Command. Sodliers must follow lawful orders of their command according to the UCMJ. Bush is president, we follow his orders. Congress determines if the president has a lawful order. They did in a huge vote "yes" Therefore we are in Iraq.

Was that better for the ones who were unable to comphrend the oath of enlistment.

Pardon the spelling errors, I'm finishing up a 14hr shift.

JaJae · 08-24-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

ironic, isn't it?

what i'm saying is that it says obey the president after it says defend the constitution... when you said read the part in bold, you were equating the constitution with the prez

edit: a "brief stint" in the military doesn't make you an expert either

Read what I was responding to:

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They agreed to defend our country from enemies, foreign and domestic. This conflict is not defending our country. Thats what their contract says they are obligated to do when called upon, defending our nation. The nation has violated that contract because this war in Iraq is not in defense of the united states. Doesn't that make the contract void at this point? The employer (us government) is not keeping their end of the bargain.

I showed him what they agreed to. Then he mentioned the constitution. I just told him to re-read the part in bold.

Whatever you are trying to prove or get across isn't really working, as I'm confused. Are you arguing something I haven't said for the sake of arguing? I'm confused as to what point you're making here.

Ardentfrost · 08-24-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by smokie700

Called Chain of Command. Sodliers must follow lawful orders of their command according to the UCMJ. Bush is president, we follow his orders. Congress determines if the president has a lawful order. They did in a huge vote "yes" Therefore we are in Iraq.

So, wait, you almost convinced me of the opposite side you're representing here. The war is unlawful according to the constitution, so by what you just said, soldiers should not be following orders....

amirite?

JaJae · 08-24-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

So, wait, you almost convinced me of the opposite side you're representing here. The war is unlawful according to the constitution, so by what you just said, soldiers should not be following orders....

amirite?

How is the war unlawful? Congress voted and sent us to war.

smokie700 · 08-24-2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

How is the war unlawful? Congress voted and sent us to war.

Exactly What I was thinking. Well Bush sent us and Congress approved that he had a lawful order.

SoFlaJDM · 08-24-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

How is the war unlawful? Congress voted and sent us to war.

the security council might not agree

JaJae · 08-24-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

the security council might not agree

The security council might not agree that congress authorized us to go to war and thus it's in violation of our constitution?

smokie700 · 08-24-2006, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

the security council might not agree

When does the UN security council interept the US constitution?

Publius · 08-24-2006, 03:16 PM

i disagree with this war, but to call it an illegal war is

. Ill-advised? Sure. Poorly fought? Definitely. Illegal? No.

SoFlaJDM · 08-24-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by smokie700

When does the UN security council interept the US constitution?

when did i say that?

the war however goes against international law... i thought that kind of applied since this isn't really happening in the US