28th Sep 05, 04:20 AM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: State of Shock
Posts: 682
|
|
You said that you spent 4 years in the trenches, and you said that your ETS date was 8/15/05 it is intresting, that you have been a member here since, sometime in July 2001.
You said that you served 4 years serving this country in the Trenches in the Army, you said that 8/15/05 was your ETS date, so unless you spent 6 years in the Nat Guard, and 2 years IRR ( inactive ready reserve ) Even with that it is still inconsitent with what you are saying..... that you spent 4 years in the Trenches in the Army, Was your ETS based on a Medical Discharge??? How did you bypass the stop loss order? What was your MOS? Where were you staioned?
You have been around here on a pretty regluar basis, (on and off at least since 7/01) You said that you were in Texas last December, and still are.... So did you ever serve on active duty other than for Basic and AIT?
So what gives ?
|
|
28th Sep 05, 05:25 AM
|
|
Chopped Liver
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 851
|
|
"P.S. the words Killing and Murder are synonymous. Just to stop you before you say something else that sounds retarded."
Synonymous means the same words can be used to express similar thought should one desire to do so. It does NOT mean they are the same. Killing and Murder may be synonymous but that doesn't mean you can use them any way you wish. Or is that too retarded for you?
Air America NEEDS YOUR MONEY! Give or die!!!!!! Al Franken will perform oral...x if you send $10! Please! Don't let the Bush Haters down while we can still use the hurricanes to spread hate and raise funds at the same time!
This means YOU!
}---
|
|
28th Sep 05, 08:48 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Under some Facist Dictatorship
Posts: 194
|
|
Originally Posted by Firefox
You said that you spent 4 years in the trenches, and you said that your ETS date was 8/15/05 it is intresting, that you have been a member here since, sometime in July 2001.
You said that you served 4 years serving this country in the Trenches in the Army, you said that 8/15/05 was your ETS date, so unless you spent 6 years in the Nat Guard, and 2 years IRR ( inactive ready reserve ) Even with that it is still inconsitent with what you are saying..... that you spent 4 years in the Trenches in the Army, Was your ETS based on a Medical Discharge??? How did you bypass the stop loss order? What was your MOS? Where were you staioned?
You have been around here on a pretty regluar basis, (on and off at least since 7/01) You said that you were in Texas last December, and still are.... So did you ever serve on active duty other than for Basic and AIT?
So what gives ?
Ok, I think one of us made a typo somewhere. I don't think I ever mentioned 8/15/05 as my ETS date. I joined in 1997 and left in 2001... I'll leave it to you to do the math. I served my time in Ft. Hood, Tx... went to signal school in Ft. Gordon, GA and basic in Ft. Jackson, SC. I left as a SPC because I turned down my offer to attend PLDC and become an NCO because I was at the time having trouble in my marriage and didn't want to spend more time away from my family than I already was with our high op-tempo.
|
|
28th Sep 05, 02:22 PM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Past Through Tomorrow
Posts: 1,591
|
|
|
|
28th Sep 05, 05:41 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Under some Facist Dictatorship
Posts: 194
|
|
Art. 34. Remains of deceased 1. The remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities and those or persons not nationals of the country in which they have died as a result of hostilities shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained and marked as provided for in Article 130 of the Fourth Convention, where their remains or gravesites would not receive more favourable consideration under the Conventions and this Protocol.
2. As soon as circumstances and the relations between the adverse Parties permit, the High Contracting Parties in whose territories graves and, as the case may be, other locations of the remains of persons who have died as a result of hostilities or during occupation or in detention are situated, shall conclude agreements in order: (a) to facilitate access to the gravesites by relatives of the deceased and by representatives of official graves registration services and to regulate the practical arrangements for such access; (b) to protect and maintain such gravesites permanently; (c) to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased and of personal effects to the home country upon its request or, unless that country objects, upon the request of the next of kin.
3. In the absence of the agreements provided for in paragraph 2 (b) or (c) and if the home country or such deceased is not willing to arrange at its expense for the maintenance of such gravesites, the High Contracting Party in whose territory the gravesites are situated may offer to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased to the home country. Where such an offer has not been accepted the High Contracting Party may, after the expiry of five years from the date of the offer and upon due notice to the home country, adopt the arrangements laid down in its own laws relating to cemeteries and graves.
4. A High Contracting Party in whose territory the grave sites referred to in this Article are situated shall be permitted to exhume the remains only: (a) in accordance with paragraphs 2 (c) and 3, or (b) where exhumation is a matter or overriding public necessity, including cases of medical and investigative necessity, in which case the High Contracting Party shall at all times respect the remains, and shall give notice to the home country or its intention to exhume the remains together with details of the intended place of reinterment.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
|
|
28th Sep 05, 08:06 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 362
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but if soldiers go over to another country we can't fire on them until we are in danger of being killed (fired upon) right? With that said unless anyone here was there in Iraq, we are not the ones to say if its Self Defense or not! Sinse you got out in 2001 you and I wouldn't know if we were fired upon first. However the argument could be made well I thought he fired at me, or well it looked like he was going to kill me, but hey like I said earlier, If they were killed invain, and christians killed them without them hearing about God, then they will answer for that. Also it can be argued that we were defending our nation, as isn't it considered treason and / or insubordination to disobey a lawful order given by the President? No I dont feel that its right, however you dont see it on CNN, so I really don't think soldiers were trading pictures of the dead for porn. Again as said earlier, Photoshop comes to mind when you mention this.
Now to another point:
Also it says in the Defense of Others:
The people in Iraq were being tortured by there leader and that is a well known fact, so it could be said that we were acting in the Best Interest to DEFEND those people being oppressed by there Government to give them the opportunity for life!
Also have a good day, i should get back to work now
|
|
28th Sep 05, 09:29 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Under some Facist Dictatorship
Posts: 194
|
|
Originally Posted by PCTech
Correct me if I am wrong, but if soldiers go over to another country we can't fire on them until we are in danger of being killed (fired upon) right? With that said unless anyone here was there in Iraq, we are not the ones to say if its Self Defense or not! Sinse you got out in 2001 you and I wouldn't know if we were fired upon first. However the argument could be made well I thought he fired at me, or well it looked like he was going to kill me, but hey like I said earlier, If they were killed invain, and christians killed them without them hearing about God, then they will answer for that. Also it can be argued that we were defending our nation, as isn't it considered treason and / or insubordination to disobey a lawful order given by the President? No I dont feel that its right, however you dont see it on CNN, so I really don't think soldiers were trading pictures of the dead for porn. Again as said earlier, Photoshop comes to mind when you mention this.
Now to another point:
Also it says in the Defense of Others:
The people in Iraq were being tortured by there leader and that is a well known fact, so it could be said that we were acting in the Best Interest to DEFEND those people being oppressed by there Government to give them the opportunity for life!
Also have a good day, i should get back to work now
I'll get to the other points later as I am in class right now (VB.net).
But you said that "however you dont see it on CNN, so I really don't think soldiers were trading pictures of the dead for porn."
The BBC finally pays attention read this if you have doubts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4289518.stm
|
|
28th Sep 05, 10:21 PM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Past Through Tomorrow
Posts: 1,591
|
|
All it says is "allegations"
|
|
28th Sep 05, 10:54 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 362
|
|
Originally Posted by JacKDynne
All it says is "allegations"
Yup thats right.
I mean honestly I can superimpose a dead corpse in a digital picture of my living room if i wanted to, but i mean really the only thing it will do is cause allegations of misconduct! Who is to say at this point that they are actually taken in iraq other than the word of a journalist and we all know they are the most honest people in the world, never stretching or altering the truth!
/me needs to go back to work
|
|
29th Sep 05, 12:49 AM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Past Through Tomorrow
Posts: 1,591
|
|
Oh come on PCTech, we know that everything we see on the internet is true, don't we? (sarcastically rolls eyes at dopeweasel)
54 of 125 people found the following review helpful:
A Particularly Bad Book, August 13, 2005
Reviewer: P. Solomon, (Washington DC,) - See all my reviews
This book apparently was written not just by a neofascist neocon, but by a very desperate one. This book contains hardly any information, but lies, falsities and 'ad hominem' attacks against Michael Moore, Al Franken, and George Soros.
The author, a White House correspondent for the National Review, seems to be totally ignorant of the fundamental trend in American politics: that big money and the right wing corporate media have established a corrupt plutocracy in America. If you're a desperate fascist you might enjoy it...otherwise I suggest investing your mind elsewhere.
Back at ya
I guess some people are happy being fed other's opinions and can't read the book to make an opinion of their own. Ah, to live such a life carefree and so well controlled, sitting around the fire singing kumbaya holding hands and hating everything that is not the same as your own narrow mind. Let us all rejoice in the love that is DopeWeasel .
ROTFLMAOPOE at you dopey
/JD
Last edited by JacKDynne : 29th Sep 05 at 03:36 AM.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 AM.
|
|