user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Un-freedom-believable.
Talking negatively about a commanding officer is strictly against the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's a rule that he knew and understood, yet disobeyed. Flawless years of service isn't a hard goal for a service member to achieve and neither are medals that were forced to earn. What I mean is, his flawless years of service don't mean shit. Why should he get special treatment when being prosecuted for breaking a serious crime in the military? You talk bad about your boss as a civilian, you'll get fired. Same difference. Sounds like the soldiers a whiner to me. Anywho, I get the point you're trying to make Qui, but from a military perspective, he deserves it.
A direct commanding office, I could see. But the president ... by dint of his too-distant-to-even-see capacity as Commander in Chief?!? That does nothing to address immediate situations (such as against a field commander) and everything to muffle servicemen and put one more constraint on the freedom to criticize our ELECTED leaders.
so no attorny?
He applied for a discharge.Really do you believe he deserves no legal representaion for that?
He doesn't need an attorney Qui and if so, for what? What's his arguement? I'm tired of getting deployed? I'm sick of being a soldier? He clearly screwed up in front of the wrong people. You may not think the President is in the military's DIRECT chain of command, but his picture is hanging on the very wall outside of my office. Sucks but, that's part of the discipline of being a soldier.
wow that does suck.Ill be the first to admit I have no clue on how the military works.
Apparently, you must hate freedom, ie you disagree with Bush. If there is any solace in companionship you at least know you are not the only veterans being attacked by Bush.
My spot in the Ministry of Love is already booked.
Dingleberry is absolutely right.My dad was Marine colonel.My brother was LT junior grade in Navy.and my brother refused to get anthrux shot.He got kicked out like any other service man who refused it.And I'm sure my dad was sad about it.but all he said is"He should have known better.They(Navy) did a right thing".And I agree with my dad.He was an officer who was supposed to be a role model to the young sailors.He got what he deserved.dishonourble diccharge.Don't get me wrong.I love my brother.I support his dicision.But that doesn't mean Navy has to.
Go George Bush!!! woohoo
As you said, this Adminisration will continue to do whatEVER it sees fit to do, so long as it serves their own ends. The ONLY way to correct this wrong is to send the Bushes BACK to Crawford to STAY.
Artical 88: Contempt towards officials. Just so you know.
Dingle: I don't doubt it is regulated. But when it come sinto conflict with one's ability to criticize *elected* officials ... I suggest the rule is bad.
From a civilian standpoint, I agree, but I'm not a civilian and neither was he.
I agree with Dingle. He should have applied to have his status amended and shut his mouth until he was released. And THEN spoke out against the illegal and immoral war. He knew that he was under the Code of Service Discipline, or whatever you yanks call it, and should not have assumed immunity from prosecution. I wish him the best of luck, BTW, in dissuading others from joining the forces of empire. It's just too bad he couldn't have gotten a pos'n guarding Bush, and then pulled a Indira Ghandi(or was it Rajeev?) Anywats, you get my point. Sad, but his own fault.
|
|