Did you cheat on your ASVAB test to get in the military,did the military start allowing high school dropouts who haven't even got a good enough diploma(GED) to join the military?
Are you trying to argue that a military contract is not legal?
Actually, my score was so high I was moved into further testing with some others who excelled as well.
But thanks for once again showing how the pro-war crowd rely mainly on ad homs. Take those away and you'd probably have about 4 posts per year.
First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged. Die hard liberals like yourself wouldn't dare challenge the government but thank goodness not everyone serving or who has served is a dyed-in-the-wool Lib.
"He had already completed in June the eight years he promised to serve in the Oregon National Guard. But the Army told him in October it would reactivate him under its stop-loss rule, sending him for the first time overseas, away from his wife and family."
"Santiago is one of more than a dozen U.S. soldiers challenging in court the way the administration is using the stop-loss rule. Under federal law, the Pentagon can involuntarily extend the deployment of any reserve officer who's on active duty, if the president believes it's essential to national security."
JIM KLIMASKI: "That's what the contract says, real clear. Try it for one year, see if you like the Reserves or the National Guard, it fits with your schedule. And if you don't like at the end of one year, you are gone. However, all of those people who signed up under that program discovered that it was a fraud."
"The policy has been controversial. Republican Sen. John McCain has called it a "backdoor draft" as have many Democrats."
Online NewsHour: Soldiers Challenge Military's Stop-loss Order -- February 24, 2005
Please provide an example of any military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged. Die hard liberals like yourself wouldn't dare challenge the government but thank goodness not everyone serving or who has served is a dyed-in-the-wool Lib.
What you fail to understand that is that even if the person making the point is hypocritical in doing so, that alone does not invalidate the point.
And so, rather than address the point, you misdirect the conversation towards the supposed hypocrisy.
If -I- had no way of effectively addressing the heart of the matter, I'd do what you're doing -- using obfuscation and misdirection to change the focus of the discussion.
Nope, the argument is logically sound. I don't give a crap who your hero is. It's not an American patriot, that's certain, and that's all that matters.
I could if I could recall the number of the resolution authorizing the president to use force to remove Hussein from Iraq.
As I told you, the Constitution doesn't define what form a "declaration of war" has to take.
You'll get over it. The Constitution is supposed to be read carefully.
I do that.
Then you can explain why you can't understand that the Constitution doesn't specify the format of the declaration of war.
You can do that, can't you?
I could, if I was interested enough to bother.
Needless to say, you've lost your argument because you don't have one anymore. It's been shot out from beneath you.
And that's all that needed to be done.Okay. I condemned the vandalism long ago...
Actually, my score was so high I was moved into further testing with some others who excelled as well.
First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged.
Considering the desperation of the anti-war left, one has to wonder if this story is true or if this is just a clerical error that was later cleared up."He had already completed in June the eight years he promised to serve in the Oregon National Guard. But the Army told him in October it would reactivate him under its stop-loss rule, sending him for the first time overseas, away from his wife and family."
JIM KLIMASKI: "That's what the contract says, real clear. Try it for one year, see if you like the Reserves or the National Guard, it fits with your schedule. And if you don't like at the end of one year, you are gone. However, all of those people who signed up under that program discovered that it was a fraud."
Online NewsHour: Soldiers Challenge Military's Stop-loss Order -- February 24, 2005
"The policy has been controversial. Republican Sen. John McCain has called it a "backdoor draft" as have many Democrats."
Please provide an example of any military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.
So, you admit that there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.Why would I need to provide that example? I never made that claim. Here is what I did say:
"First of all, there are several types of military contracts and the legality of some of them get challenged."
I've already provided examples of that.
For some reason I doubt that. IF you are intelligent as you claim to be then you wouldn't be claiming the following-
-military contracts are a back door draft
-Its impossible to read the whole contract because they are the size of metropolitan phonebooks
-the military is making you stay longer than your enlistment
-stop loss is not part of the contract
-you can be called back to service up to 8 years of your last date of service
-Stop loss is slavery
So either you are dumbass,you are liar and making **** up as you go along, or you are Jessie MacBeth(someone who enlisted but didn't complete basic,so he made up stories to milk *****fist for fame).Which is it? You are on the internet posting on a public forum so anything you have previously said can be pulled up.
What are the forms? Can you provide some examples. If I can pull up dd form 4/1 then you should be able to pull up additional contracts. You should be able to provide some numbers seeing how the military gives you a copy of everything you sign.Those forms should be it your little do not throw away packet.
Considering the desperation of the anti-war left, one has to wonder if this story is true or if this is just a clerical error that was later cleared up.
If his contract reads like everyone else's in the military then he is a fool full of **** for trying to make this claim.
Because a bunch of liberals say so then it must be true?How are you going to be running around calling me of all people a liberal and then try to cite what they say as some sort of proof? Yes I am calling a McCain a liberal, when it comes to republicans he is the worst one to try to use.That man has tossed more salad than a inmate at Rikers.
Nice another red herring.
Face it you are wrong. YOu were ignorant of your contract and you want to call all of us who served "slaves" because of stop-loss, when all you had to do was read your contract.
The war was not illegal. We are sovereign not subservient to the UN global socialists/.
So, you admit that there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance.
Your exception to the legality of military service contracts, and its support of your claim that stop/loss is slavery, is thus removed.
Do you disagree with that statement?What is this? Strawman central? I never said:
"...there are no instances of a military contract having been declared 'illegal' by someone of relevance."
Yes - and, given that all of the members of the -all volunteer- military voluntarily sign a contract that includes having their enlistmenst extended as necessary, its an argument you cannot support.Blimy. My argument is Stop Loss is a form of slavery.
Yup, i don't think the marines would like that very much.
I recall a story a while back when a marine caught a liberal vandalizing his car, because he had a Marines bumper sticker.
Turns out that that fine guy was a liberal, and tried to sue him for detaining him.
Hmm...so let's see...you re-write my posts to fit your agenda, ignore other relevent things I have said and use that to make several false accusations?
I cited those examples of challenging the Stop Loss to show it isn't as cut and dry as some claim.
Well, iam smart enough to not care what you think.
The only thing worse than a flaming lib is a dishonest one.
Er, i mean turns out he was a lawyer
+1
I read the contract. the whole contract. I always do. The fact that he thinks they screwed him because he failed at due diligence is rather humorous.
Well, personally I think it's stupid and completely misguided to attack a recruiting station as if they put us in the war. The recruiters are just doing their job. Nobody is forcing people to enlist. Then again, how can one expect the people who would vandalize a recruiting station as sign of protest to have a level head?
Being paid a wage doesn't mean slavery cannot be present as some slaves and serfs have been paid while enslaved. Also, not all signed contracts are legal so the excuse of "the contract is voluntarily signed!" fails to recognize there is an entire division of the legal world where lawyers and courts focus specifically on the legality of contracts.
Finally, it's somewhat strange because it seems many who keep screaming "contract" are also the same groups that ignore the fact the Bush admin broke the law with invading iraq. So in one arena, the letter of the contract is paramount, but in a different arena, the legality of contracts are irrelevent.
Exactly, the Constitution is to be read carefully. There are declarations of war, these are official declarations. They come in one form and that is for Congress to officially declare war against another state.
We have no had a declared war since WW II. The declaration is specific, and can only take that form. If it's not in the Constitution, the government doesn't have the power.
So when the founders wrote that only Congress can declare war they meant that only Congress has the ability to issue a declaration against another state. Authorizing military action is not a declaration, it's a ***** move by a bunch of spineless, big government aristocrats and nothing less.
You're the one that doesn't understand. The Constitution is very specific, Congress issues Declarations of War, it doesn't specify format because it doesn't get any other format besides an official declaration, the likes have not been issued during WW II. No other format is allowed.
JIM KLIMASKI: "That's what the contract says, real clear. Try it for one year, see if you like the Reserves or the National Guard, it fits with your schedule. And if you don't like at the end of one year, you are gone. However, all of those people who signed up under that program discovered that it was a fraud."
I most certainly expect people who vandalize a minor store-front office as a protest against a national policy to have some of the flattest heads you've ever seen. Right about there, low enough that their height is measured by their ears sticking up.
If you read the Constitution carefully, as you have just claimed to done, please cite the clause that specifies that Declarations of War must be accompanied by a US State Department Form XW-23d4-F to be valid.
The Constitution doesn't specify what form that declaration takes. Therefore you argument that the war authorization granted the president by Congress is not a "declaration of war" is unsupportable.
Sophistry. Looks real purty...but not supported by any facts.
Yes, the Constitution specifically does not say what form the "declaration of war" takes. Also, the intent of that clause is to put the power to commit the nation to war in the hands of the Congress, not the president. THAT's the key constitutional issue at stake. That issue was satisfied. That we didn't e-mail Saddam a little note saying I-DE-CLARE WARRRRR! isn't relevant.
You see, once you get around to actually reading the Constitution, you need to understand it. You're mssing that part.
"Format" of a declaration of war...yeah, find that in the Constitution, go right ahead....
:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?