Courageous Soldiers Go AWOL

That's a riot, and I'll tell you why

Firstly, the president does have authority to engage in military action without congress for up to 60 days (this is why Panama and Grenada were legal under Reagan). The war in Iraq did not exceed the 60 day mark, by that time we were already in a "peace keeping roll", which likewise doesn't require congressional authorization (that's why Vietnam was legal)

And that's why those in the know, who's education surpasses their capacity to *** and moan, understand that Bush didn't actually break any laws in Iraq. Interestingly enough while his opponents scream impeachment none of them have yet to actually consider doing it seriously, because they know this.

Secondly (and this one should ring a bell to the anti Bush crowd): due process,as it concerns governmental power, says that if the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch does something suspect it must be deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch for it to become such. That's checks and balances. You can't go deeming something unconstitutional and disobeying lawful military orders because "that's my opinion".

It's interesting to note that the Constitutionality of this war has yet to be challenged by ANY democrat or Republican, Ron Paul included, to the Supreme Court. Just further proof that those in the know, know you're wrong.

I'll read the article later but 9 times out of 10 these instances rightfully result in



FEDUP why is it every time you defend a US solider they're either AWOL or fabricating stories about war crimes?

This is a real problem because a soldier is suppose to obey the last oder given him/her then seek higher authority to not to respond....................................................................................... But even though, I, in the middle of it all felt it was wrong, I had buddies that needed me, as I them.
And that is my take on it which [SIZE="4"]I am sure will be ignored[/SIZE]. loooooool

Was watching the video supposed to bring about an epiphany of some sort?

The U.S. military has been "ALL VOLUNTEER" since the early 1970's.
Any individual who signed, understood that from the day they raised their hand and took the oath that the possibility of deployment into hostility existed. It was the foremost point in being a member of a military organization.
There was no fine print that suggested that they would be allowed to choose which conflicts they would participate in.

The suggestion that people who abandon their station are heroic because the act of abandonment carries with it a price to be paid, (7 months in jail) is quite a joke. Especially in the case of a medic, whose presence and expertise in the field is essential to a wounded warrior. Even to wounded enemies and civilians. There are no standing orders which would prevent a medic from offering aid to wounded people.

Nothing is more rediculous than than to hear a youth say they are going to join the military for the educational benefits or other benefits without considering the risk of being a soldier. Their parents fail them when they discuss the act without putting a dictionary in front of them, clarifying the possibilities. Soldiers do not get the choice of which conflicts they will participate in, nor should they. Especially volunteer soldiers.

The problem is we can't keep sending the same guys into combat over a decade or so. It'll produce a generation of PTSD victims, not to mention the issue of deaths and wounded troops. Something has to 'give'.

Agreed. It is time for Iraqis to take up the torch and our military take a back seat. Schools, parents and media no longer teach the youth of America that the freedom they enjoy or the freedom of people of other nations is worthy of their attention. Thus the lack of interest by our youth.

There is also a strategic necessity involved. We can't be so tied down in Iraq that we can't fight Islamo-Terrorism elsewhere, which we need to do, obviously. We might have to settle with 'second-best' solutions in Iraq to free ourselves to press the fight on other fronts, such as Afghanistan and Algeria.:rocketwhore:

"You are taking it out of context"

we can't go marching through every goddamned nation we feel like, this makes for a VERY bad foreign policy, we should be making allies not breaking them.

Why? If nations support those who attack America, They pay a price.
To hell with what those nations think. They need to think of ways to get along with us for a change. Those people may need to think of a way to make us an ally. Heh?

First off, we can't afford to. Second, it isn't our place, or right to tell countries how to think, or police/invade countries that have never attacked us. Your neighbor hating you for reasons you can't fathom does not give you the right to kill him.

i can't tell you th number of times i've heard that

First off, we can't afford to. Second, it isn't our place, or right to tell countries how to think, or police/invade countries that have never attacked us. Your neighbor hating you for reasons you can't fathom does not give you the right to kill him.

Second, it isn't our place, or right to tell countries how to think,

Your neighbor hating you for reasons you can't fathom does not give you the right to kill him.

So your all for do as i say?
Whats your opinion on policing Darfur?

If there hate gets to a point of killing i'm sure you'd take them out without hesitation? Or stand by an watch?

I couldn't care less about Danfur. If people want to help them out, join the Peace Corp. I am much more concerned with helping America.

I agree - instead of spending billions elsewhere, create job opportunity centers throughout our nation teaching trades so that those displaced can actually help to rebuild their communities themselves and earn a living at the same time.