T1B

mvscal wrote:

Kierland wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote: But I don't lay blame at the feet of those doing the fighting, and consider them, for the most part, to be far more noble and worthy of praise than, say, you, who does nothing of any discernible value for me or anyone else in this country.

A distinction should be made between officers and enlisted as they take a different oath. Officers are more 'culpable' and hence more 'blameworthy' for wrong doing in an unjust war than are the enlisted soldiers.

Guess again, dipshit.

With which part of what he's saying do you disagree? It's already been shown that officers and enlisteds take different oaths, so I assume you're referring to the issue of culpability. You pointed out that there is a difference between levels of responsibility, but not because they take different oaths. Kierland is not stating otherwise here. Chances are the causation is working in the opposite direction - the oaths are different because the expectations are different, and this doesn't only apply to "unjust wars," but to those that are "justified" as well as to peacetime. Kierland doesn' specify this, but neither does he say that the difference in responsibilities results from taking different oaths.

For the My Lai massacre, some 26 officers and enlisted were court-martialed, but only Calley was convicted. The men who followed his orders risked punishment either way - if they obeyed, they were committing war crimes. If they didn't, they were insubordinate, and also failing to abide by the part of the oath requiring that they obey superior officers. I won't argue that all enlisteds blindly follow orders, but that is not at issue here, nor is the fact that both groups are bound by the UCMJ. The only two points being addressed are that the two take different oaths, and that they have different levels of responsibility imposed upon them, irrespective of the cause. On both counts, Kierland is right.

So where is the disagreement?

Smackie Chan wrote:For the My Lai massacre, some 26 officers and enlisted were court-martialed, but only Calley was convicted.

Were you at My Lai during this so called "massacre?" If not, you might want to watch your P's and Q's or Mr. Punk and his friend mvscal might try and tear you a new one over it.

But seriously, are these two always like this?

Kierland wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:For the My Lai massacre, some 26 officers and enlisted were court-martialed, but only Calley was convicted.

Were you at My Lai during this so called "massacre?"

I'm not gonna answer that.

But just be aware that this is a smack board first and foremost, so being right and reasonable is not the key objective. Insult quality and humiliation are the goals. Stay focused.

Smackie Chan wrote:I'm not gonna answer that.

Touché.

But just be aware that this is a smack board first and foremost, so being right and reasonable is not the key objective. Insult quality and humiliation are the goals. Stay focused.

So EVERYTHING is personal? Ok, I'll see if I can pull that off.

So far from what I've read here Mr. Punk is not very smart and spends A LOT of time drinking and mvscal is quite racist and spends most of his time rubbing white shoe polish on his penis and then rubbing one out in a vain attempt to alleviate his self-loathing for not being born white enough.

And you are some kind of freakishly tall Asian hippy, but I have only been here a few weeks so I could be wrong on the last one.

Better?

Kierland wrote:So far from what I've read here Mr. Punk is not very smart and spends A LOT of time drinking and mvscal is quite racist and spends most of his time rubbing white shoe polish on his penis and then rubbing one out in a vain attempt to alleviate his self-loathing for not being born white enough.

Glad to see that you have such a firm grasp of the obvious.

And you are some kind of freakishly tall Asian hippy

The freak and hippy parts are/were true. Not sure if 6'1" would be considered terribly tall (unless contrasted with Moving Sale), and despite the nic, I'm not Asian.

Better?

Perhaps, but you still have a long road to travel, Grasshoppah.

Kierland wrote:So far from what I've read here Mr. Punk is not very smart and spends A LOT of time drinking and mvscal is quite racist and spends most of his time rubbing white shoe polish on his penis and then rubbing one out in a vain attempt to alleviate his self-loathing for not being born white enough.

And you are some kind of freakishly tall Asian hippy, but I have only been here a few weeks so I could be wrong on the last one.

Alright, now I call bullshit. Trolljob.

Which handle did you have before, Kierland?


(and before anybody pitches a bitch, I'm feeling much better now with the hydrocodone :) Kisses and earth mama hugs to the crew -- old, and Stucknut.)

Risa wrote:I'm feeling much better now

No one cares. The concern is how much worse everyone else will feel due to your renewed presence.

Risa wrote:Alright, now I call bullshit. Trolljob.

You are entitled to your opinion. Not that it matters.

From what I've learned of you I shouldn't have even given you the time of day.

Something about my scroll-wheel...

Queerland wrote:
From what I've learned of you...

Okay I'll try better...

When will you guys like me? Boo who... :sad:

Look tard, at some point personal info smack gets played out and everybody here has used it on each other for many years. So a loser like you coming in here seeking approval bringing what you think are "slam dunks" as smack, makes you look like a bigger faggot than you already think of yourself as being.

My one question for you is: Do you live in Kansas City? Because I can accurately predict what kind of mad skillz "smack" you will go to next.

Fuck off.

mvscal wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:For the My Lai massacre, some 26 officers and enlisted were court-martialed, but only Calley was convicted. The men who followed his orders risked punishment either way - if they obeyed, they were committing war crimes. So where is the disagreement?

The disagreement stems from the fact that neither of one of you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Nice spin job, but your original beef was that either there aren't two different oaths, there aren't different levels of responsibility, or both. I posted both oaths, and you conceded that there are different responsibilities, then spun the argument to, "Well, yeah, but the differences in responsibilities don't flow from the oaths," while no one had said that they did. Nothing Kierland had posted at that point was factually incorrect. You simply made the leap that what was meant was something different than what was posted, without actually knowing what was meant.

Calley's company commander who allegedly ordered the killings was acquitted despite the prosecutions attempt to argue command responsibility. Calley was convicted because he was personally responsible for as many as 50 to 60 of the murders.

Did I say otherwise? I know Capt. Medina was unsuccessfully court-martialed, as were others who were actually involved. Calley was convicted for 22 premeditated civilian murders, while 109 civilians were killed.

their is no such crime as "insubordination."

Now you've reached the level of desperation where you're just arguing semantics. Insubordination is synonymous with disobedience, which is different from "disobeying an order or regulation" how? Just because the UCMJ doesn't use the word doesn't mean the action defined by it isn't covered. Try not being such a little bitch.

Murdering civilians is not a lawful order and soldiers obeying an unlawful order risk punishment under the UCMJ.

No argument there. But while many would find it inconceivable that every soldier wouldn't know that murdering civilians is unlawful, under the circumstances of Viet Nam, I'd bet that for every My Lai type of incident in which combatants were court-martialed or otherwise punished for their actions, several others occurred for which no punitive action was taken, and no one will ever hear of them. It's unlikely that when a soldier was given an order from a superior officer to carry out an assignment, he thought to himself, "Gee, I dunno - maybe I should consult my copy of the UCMJ before I pull the trigger." I think you'll agree (or maybe not) that many of those drafted into service for Viet Nam were not the brightest bulbs on the tree, and that, above all else, their primary instruction was to follow orders. Few of them were experts on what was covered by the UCMJ.

Oaths are meaningless formalities with no force of law.

Again, I never claimed otherwise. (Although, after reading what I posted, I can see how someone might reasonably believe that I did. But I'll assure you here that I never was under the impression that charges could be brought for failing to abide by the terms of one's induction oath.) I brought it up because the two issues involved in the discussion are oaths and responsibilities. Unlike you, I try to keep my comments relevant to the discussion, and not make unfounded assumptions. You should try it sometime.

mvscal wrote:Oaths are meaningless formalities with no force of law.

I wasn't talking about the law I was talking about what I thought about the situation that was being discussed and what I said was that I felt that officers should be held to a higher standard and then I stated why. I do put some stock in an oath. I feel it tells me a lot about someone if they will follow it. I expect more from officers and it sounds like you do too.

Is there any other peripheral bullshit you want to note?

Smackie Chan wrote:

Risa wrote:I'm feeling much better now

No one cares. The concern is how much worse everyone else will feel due to your renewed presence.

No one ever cares. That's the overriding theme of this place. I had to relax, and take a breather.

So I re-read some old threads, and some old archives. I wanted to see who breaks, who doesn't, what causes a break; who gets racked, who used to get racked, and who never gets racked. Then I made mental notes of the funnier one liners; as well which one liners weren't funny at all (to me), and were lauded; and which one liners were ribcrackers (to me) but were ignored. That was relaxing.

I also wanted to read in between certain lines. That was also relaxing, on top of troubling.
But for others feeling worse, well.

Kierland wrote:

Risa wrote:Alright, now I call bullshit. Trolljob.

You are entitled to your opinion. Not that it matters.
From what I've learned of you I shouldn't have even given you the time of day.
Something about my scroll-wheel...

Feeling like you're fitting in yet, kiddo?

You are trolling. I just don't know enough about the past to place whose persona you are. The only reason why you'd make a big deal about the commissioned thing, to me, is that the answer gives you away personawise or knowledgewise.

You don't have to hide, here. No one can hurt you, but you.

Kierland wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:Were you commissioned?

If that was even close to being relevant I would answer, but it is not so I won't.

Its relevant,I was a NCO for 17 years,I lived a world apart from commissioned officers.