Matt, UR a tinfoil hat wearing moron. Move your stupid ass to Iraq or Iran or Syria and then let us know how that works out.Matt wrote:But I suspect you don't have that, and that you're running your hot headed mouth, like usual.
Duke wrote:Matt, UR a tinfoil hat wearing moron. Move your stupid ass to Iraq or Iran or Syria and then let us know how that works out.Matt wrote:But I suspect you don't have that, and that you're running your hot headed mouth, like usual.
You will be crying like a bitch within a month and crying for mother America.
Team America out.
I'm neither stupid nor a moron. You aren't either, but your red mist does seem to get the better of you on occasion. If you can fly an Apache your basic cognition and reading comprehension are sufficient to understand what I've written, so your missive about me moving to Iran or Syria is irrelevant.Duke wrote:Matt, UR a tinfoil hat wearing moron. Move your stupid ass to Iraq or Iran or Syria and then let us know how that works out.Matt wrote:But I suspect you don't have that, and that you're running your hot headed mouth, like usual.
You will be crying like a bitch within a month and crying for mother America.
Team America out.
This is what I have sworn too...several times now:Matt wrote:Is that what you want? Is that what you signed up for? Do you think the USA is right in everything it does no matter what? Even when dipshits like Obama hold the reins?
Correct me if I am wrong, but your oath requires you to DISOBEY an unconstitutional order. And it requires you to defend the constitution against enemies... foreign and DOMESTIC.Duke wrote:This is what I have sworn too...several times now:Matt wrote:Is that what you want? Is that what you signed up for? Do you think the USA is right in everything it does no matter what? Even when dipshits like Obama hold the reins?
I, Wellington W. Samouce, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of LTC do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
This includes the orders of the Commander and Chief...........whoever it is.
Psst, it's commander-in-chief.Duke wrote:This is what I have sworn too...several times now:Matt wrote:Is that what you want? Is that what you signed up for? Do you think the USA is right in everything it does no matter what? Even when dipshits like Obama hold the reins?
I, Wellington W. Samouce, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of LTC do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
This includes the orders of the Commander and Chief...........whoever it is.
In case you were too busy swearing and weren't paying attention, or were asking an actual question in your last sentence, your current boss happens to be Barack Obama. I know sometimes you military guys get a little too jazzed up and miss the little details, like who you're pledging your allegiance too. Or why.
You really should have read the rest of my exchanges with Snakebrain before responding. I understood fully well before this thread why the US wants Assange in Sweden. My point is that the US doesn't want him there for the purpose of being tried for alleged rapes.Jeremy wrote:Actually, the US does. If Assange gets extradited to Sweden, Sweden's very friendly legal/political relationship with the US would make it very easy for the US to get him extradited to here.Shawn D. wrote:That doesn't make any sense. It's Assange who does not want to be extradited to Sweden because he is afraid of being further extradited to the US. The US "doesn't have a dog in that fight" with regards to the alleged rape situation with Sweden.snakebrain wrote:To clarify, the stated aims in each case are quite clearly not the actual reaons underlying the actions being taken. The Obama administration does not want Assange in Sweden to be questioned regarding alleged rape charges, and the USADA does not have the fairness of sporting activities in mind in it's prosecution of Armstrong. In both cases, a spurious but technically defensible case is being used to perpetrate a hidden agenda.
Assange has offered to come to Sweden willingly if they'll promise not to extradite him to the US or hand him over to US authorities. The fact that Sweden won't make that guarantee reveals the motive for pushing so hard for his extradition. If they simply wanted to try his case, why withhold the guarantee of non-extradition to the US?
If they truly wanted justice on the rape charges, he could be tried in absentia. That doesn't appear to be the ultimate goal, however. The ultimate goal appears to be get him in a location where US authorities can get their hands on him and then drag him someplace to face espionage charges.
Naawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww..................... reallyahab wrote:The current commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces is Barack Obama, the 43rd person to hold the position.
Very true dat!ahab wrote:By the way, you wouldn't last 5 minutes against Lance Armstrong, doped or otherwise.
Small point to make here, said teenager was not the target, but was collateral damage. His father was the target. Of course his father was also a US citizen, so this doesn't change your argument, but just something I thought I should point out.Matt wrote:
If you were one of the guys up here in Grand Forks flying drone missions... and Obama (or whomever) says, "kill this American teenager. Because we say he's a terrorist"
Matt wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but your oath requires you to DISOBEY an unconstitutional order. And it requires you to defend the constitution against enemies... foreign and DOMESTIC.Duke wrote:This is what I have sworn too...several times now:Matt wrote:Is that what you want? Is that what you signed up for? Do you think the USA is right in everything it does no matter what? Even when dipshits like Obama hold the reins?
I, Wellington W. Samouce, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of LTC do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
This includes the orders of the Commander and Chief...........whoever it is.
Let me ask you something.
Do you beleive it is constitutional for the executive branch to _claim_ (not prove, but _claim_) that a child who is an American citizen is a terrorist, and then subsequently execute that child?
Doesn't it seem to you that every American citizen has some guaranteed rights?
- facing their accuser
- a jury trial
... these rights, at least, come to mind. And are mentioned in the constitution... the thing you are supposed to be defending.
If you were one of the guys up here in Grand Forks flying drone missions... and Obama (or whomever) says, "kill this American teenager. Because we say he's a terrorist"
Are you going to do it?
Does some part of you ask, "hrmm.. maybe the kid should get a trial first?"
The founders of this nation insisted on Mr. Assange getting a fair trial. Do you think he's going to get one?
Beats me where that came from in this thread.Duke wrote:WTH?w0014170 wrote:a bunch of crap......
There is such a thing as an unlawful order. Such an order, for example to kill unarmed civilians, can be refused to be followed. We are not mindless drogues.w0014170 wrote:BTW in the oath you repeatedly swear to (thanks for serving), have you ever questioned "who" decides which individual or groups are the domestic enemy in this country or are you prepared to blindly follow expecting no adverse outcome if wrong?
I know you're not and understand that concept. ButDuke wrote:There is such a thing as an unlawful order. Such an order, for example to kill unarmed civilians, can be refused to be followed. We are not mindless drogues.w0014170 wrote:BTW in the oath you repeatedly swear to (thanks for serving), have you ever questioned "who" decides which individual or groups are the domestic enemy in this country or are you prepared to blindly follow expecting no adverse outcome if wrong?
Sorry guys; just couldn't hinter myself.
A landing showcasing the drogue chute and speed brake animation, the chute is operated
with Reverse Thrust (F2 to activate, and F1 to deactivate reverse thrust).
Whoever points a weapon at me is the enemy. It is also refined in the Rules Of Engagement (ROE), that is a constantly changing/living document.w0014170 wrote:WHO decides the issue of domestic enemies? Seriously, who knows who or what this authority is. It's not the National Command Authority, it has to come from elected civilian officials, question is who? Do you know?
In other words "rules dejure" and it's wide open to misinterpretation & ambiguity. Nothings changed in the 38 years since I got out. That's optimisticDuke wrote:Whoever points a weapon at me is the enemy. It is also refined in the Rules Of Engagement (ROE), that is a constantly changing/living document.w0014170 wrote:WHO decides the issue of domestic enemies? Seriously, who knows who or what this authority is. It's not the National Command Authority, it has to come from elected civilian officials, question is who? Do you know?
damn straight! I always have said - the first guy to throw a banker in jail gets my vote for president - otherwise they are all the same POS politicians.oldskool wrote:I wish they'd devote half as much time and energy exposing the cheats on Wall St. Screw this noise.
