http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.


"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

G-SUS tap-dancing Christ on a burning life raft..

My thoughts exactly, especially the "We won!" part.

I demand details! This is the first I've heard of this. Wasn't he born in Hawaii? His mother is from Kansas, and regardless of any question of his father's immigration status, that should be enough by itself.

Under the Constitution the president has to be native born. We don't cotton to no dern ferners.

There are conflicting reports that this was dismissed by a fed court as moot now (I believe a retired 2 star general tried to be added to the suit).

Be awfully funny if the aluminium hat people were right on one after all.

Well of course he's a legal Yankee, otherwise he couldn't be prez in the first place. The CIA, NSA and FBI may be movie villains but at least they do proper background checks. Amirite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Only reason that guy is calling that is because the prick doesn't want to go.

BrookM wrote:Well of course he's a legal Yankee, otherwise he couldn't be prez in the first place. The CIA, NSA and FBI may be movie villains but at least they do proper background checks. Amirite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Only reason that guy is calling that is because the prick doesn't want to go.

You're not getting it Brook. Thats the argument being made. If Obama is not a native born son, so the legal argument goes, he can't be President. As such his orders of deployment are null and void.

The argument has been floating around for a bit. Surprising that they didn't drop the hammer on him, but instead released him...

Yeah and it worked, but then again people get away dumb stuff all the time.

Land of the grand opportunities indeed.

I suppose if President Clinton had ordered the major to rape seven boys and girls to death and post pictures on the internet, it would have been a legal order.

Simialr cases trying to stop Obama from being sworn in were denied or postponed. Its a cute conspiracy theory, this just gives it some legs unfortunately.

So this could escalate?

Kilkrazy wrote:I suppose if President Clinton had ordered the major to rape seven boys and girls to death and post pictures on the internet, it would have been a legal order.

No, and come on KK not funny. Under the code soldiers are only supposed to obey lawfully written orders. Jarheads obey the loudest (or quietest) sergeants

After 40 years, Dadman still couldn't talk above a hoarse whisper...

Escalate? To an extent. Others could argue the same thing. I'd imagine if more tried it they would Dishonorably Discharged getting aggressive up to enjoying the Leavenworth Hilton.

Frazzled wrote:The argument has been floating around for a bit. Surprising that they didn't drop the hammer on him, but instead released him...

Someone in the military already tried this and they did drop the hammer on him. Being an Officer the consequences are far worse as well.

Calling shenanigans on this. Something is not right about this story.

As noted a later story denotes a fed court denied hearing it, saying the case was now moot due to no cause of action.

Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen Jus sanguinis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

BrookM wrote:So this could escalate?

Could? Yes
Will it? IMHO (and as a layperson regarding the law) I believe that his lawyer is really, really good and found some teenie, tiny crack and managed to sneak their client through. I bet it will be tried again by another soldier, but they will fail. Won't be an Epic Fail, but a fail regardless. I think this guy got lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen jus sanguis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

Yeah, but McCain is a honkey so he doesn't count </sarcasm>

I'm guessing his lawyer must have a massive ass then to pull that off.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen jus sanguis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

McCain was born on US turf at the time-the Panama Canal was previously declared US territory for these purposes. Obama couldn't make that claim. He was either born in the US or he wasn't. Hawaii says hang loose! er um that he has a birth certificate from being born there. The theory gets murky that the report is fake in some manner.

by murky I mean the Frazzled BS detector hits 140 decibels at that point and I have to fight laughing.

Who really cares if he is from here? Not like half the wars we've fought in recent history were 'legal'. Most were some kind of technicality and just ended up being called conflicts.

Can't we just throw that Major in the Gulf of Tonkin and call it a day?

I exaggerated for effect, to demonstrate the difference between orders being legal, and coming from a legal authority.

BTW we are trying to get a public enquiry going in the UK to see if Gulf War 2 was legal.

There was a lot of concern from our military at the time, so much so that the top brass insisted on written confirmation from the Solicitor General.

I don't suppose anything will result, as the Establishment is usually pretty good at kicking such balls into the long grass. But it does show that the topic of legal wars is not just a bugbear of the tinfoil hat brigade.

Back on topic though... It would seem to be very easy to prove or disprove Obama's birth status using social security records. I find it difficult to suppose that the Republicans would not have worried that bone to death if there was any meat on it.

The issue of Obama's orders being from a legal authority surely cannot be doubted by a person with mental capacity.

If you dig a little, the guy requested to be deployed, then when ordered he refused and made it about Obama.

Huffington Post wrote:The Army has revoked the deployment orders for a soldier who said he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because (he believes) Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.

Because he's a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can "ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty," a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

It matters if he was eligible to be President or not Typeline. If he's not eligibe HE'S NOT THE PRESIDENT.
If it were true it would be a big damn deal. However, as noted (SO SEBBIE/DOGMA STAY OFF MY BACK) there's a birth certificate as being born in Hawaii so freakin enough said. While hawaii is in a different, and cooler, state of mind, they are still part of the US.

There was chatter on talk radio today, and allegedly, Obama hasn't released his long-form birth certificate.

Obama has two choices:
1. Deny it. Even if he produces documents, the conspriacy theorists will claim they're false, and then you have the same issue all over again.
2. Ignore it until it goes away.

The rightwing is full of hypocrites. If someone had done this with Bush (under claims that he was a draft-dodger or some such), the right would have a field day on that person. Considering the Chief Justice of the US swore Obama in, that's good enough for me.

Frazzled wrote:As noted a later story denotes a fed court denied hearing it, saying the case was now moot due to no cause of action.

The case was dismissed because the military revoked the orders before the trial began, thus there was no reason to fight the orders. Either they had already planned to rescind the orders or they just didn't feel like putting up with the insanity and cost of a trial that the defendant would have lost. By now I would imagine the argument is almost classified as a frivolous suit.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen Jus sanguinis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

Actually that is not true at all. McCain was born on American soil overseas (a military base). If you were born in Botswana outside of US soil you would have to jump through some hoops to prove it. Also, jus soli jus sanguinus is usually the standard for 'Natural Born Citizen' as the US uses a bit of both and not one to exclusion of the other.

Even if he was born out-of-country he may still be entitled to hereditary citizenship, which would jive with the Constitutional clause in question.

Section 1, of Article 2 wrote:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Edit: Per Wikipedia

There is an asymmetry in the way children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are treated. Children born abroad to unmarried American mothers are automatically considered natural-born citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year, anytime prior to the birth.

The problem, as is often the case, is that they never defined 'Natural Born Citizen' in the Constitution. This leads to all sorts of chicanery. We aren't talking about layman use here but a specific legal definition. They also threw in the 'or' there which drives legal scholars up a wall as well.

Edit: Per Wikipedia

There is an asymmetry in the way children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are treated. Children born abroad to unmarried American mothers are automatically considered natural-born citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year, anytime prior to the birth.

Of course they can gain citizenship but there are steps they would have to go through that would not normally be needed if they were born on US soil (in country, military base, or embassy, ect). It also would depend if one favors the jus soli aspect when defining 'Natural Born Citizen', or feel they both are needed to meet the requirement. There is a legal difference between being a 'Citizen' and a "Natural Born Citizen'. This is what is causing the trouble. Sure he is a citizen, but some don't think he meets the legal definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'. Others are of course just butthurt conservatives mad about losing an election and thus creating conspiracies.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen Jus sanguinis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

The President must be native born, on American soil or a US military base or embassy which are technically American soil while the land is leased to the US Government. The law was a little different when Obama was born. The mother also had to be a certain age if she did not bear the child on American soil and the father was not an American citizen. McCain meet the requirements, both for his mother, father, location and age of the mother.

That is where the problem may be.

She was not old enough for him to derive citizenship from her alone if she was under the age limit, not on American soil and the father was not an American citizen.


That is why there is a big question mark about the original certificate from that time frame which had those fields listed on them vs the copy of an updated form which Obama had shown which is a later form, not from when he was born and that copy has no areas on it listing all the required data.

And it is a very big deal in the military. We take our oaths based upon the constitution and those LEGAL officers over us.

Ahtman wrote:
Of course they can gain citizenship but there are steps they would have to go through that would not normally be needed if they were born on US soil (in country, military base, or embassy, ect).

But would they be affirming their birthright citizenship, or actively becoming new citizens of the United States?

Ahtman wrote:
It also would depend if one favors the jus soli aspect when defining 'Natural Born Citizen', or feel they both are needed to meet the requirement.

Yeah, the whole 'birthers' thing.

And a legal document was produced. Even Frazzled agrees.

I think the whole thing is ridiculous I'm just trying to clarify what the argument some people are making specifically.

I think the military should have dropped the hammer again here. It is bad for morale on a lot of different levels and examples need to be made by command that they will not tolerate this kind of foolishness.

Unless the mother is American, 21 and has spent 5 of the last 10 years in America at his birth he does not qualify as native born.

A search on the net will show she attended college in 2 different places at the same time. The first she claimed was not on American soil, the second revised account has her in Chicago.

Should be interesting...

Amended to correct stuff

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:A search on the net

Well now I'm convinced.

a shady at best legal document was produced.
it didnt have the correct seals or stamps on it to prove it was legal.
maybe they just forgot that day.

the biggest question and one that would put all of this to bed is why wont he just present the documents to the public for all to see?

this is not the first time this has come up.
there have been several lawsuits filed and all of them have been dismissed basically under the premise of hes the president now, get over it.

what an awesome job hes doing too...

And the document he produced did not have the information needed to answer the legal questions. It was the short newer form used by states which Hawaii was not so the other form has to be produced and was not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:A search on the net

Well now I'm convinced.

LOL touche

Every one knows the guy is doing it to avoid movement orders


But it is fun to watch the President squirm....He was voted for by a great many combat troops to either pull us out of this war or escalate to win, he has done neither.

Ahtman wrote:The problem, as is often the case, is that they never defined 'Natural Born Citizen' in the Constitution.

Perhaps we should only count vaginal births, and exclude Caesarians?

You guys are forgetting the most important and scary thing about the whole birth cert issue. If Obama is proved to not have been born on american soil, we get this guy as our president.

OHHHHHHHHHHH THE HORORR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




GG

This is just silly.

Dreadwinter wrote:This is just silly.

QFT, now who wants a twinkie?

Frazzled wrote:

BrookM wrote:Well of course he's a legal Yankee, otherwise he couldn't be prez in the first place. The CIA, NSA and FBI may be movie villains but at least they do proper background checks. Amirite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Only reason that guy is calling that is because the prick doesn't want to go.

You're not getting it Brook. Thats the argument being made. If Obama is not a native born son, so the legal argument goes, he can't be President. As such his orders of deployment are null and void.

The argument has been floating around for a bit. Surprising that they didn't drop the hammer on him, but instead released him...

The soldier could at least admit he just doesn't like having a Darkie for a President.

Tossers.

Is there any investigation as such as to whether or not Obama is a 'Natural born citizen' at the moment? And if so, would it affect his legitimacy as president. If the answer is yes, then I completly understand where the guy is coming from.

I, for one, would not like to get caught in enemy territory without the protection of the Geneva Convention. That means the enemy can legally do anything to you...ANYTHIIIIIIING!

A bit like being incarcerating and torturing you in a Camp neatly positioned in a different country, whilst denying you basic human rights (as guaranteed by the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War) or a trial (as is the right of Civilians) by labelling you with the bizarre monicker of 'Illegal Combatants'?

Yeah. That would be terrible, and exactly the sort of thing America has never encouraged.

I mean a country is legally allowed to tortue and execute you under the premonition that you are a spie or subversive enemy. Not an actual soldier.

Methink's there is a malfunctioning sarcasm detector in the above post......

Touching but most of the countries the US is fighting don't adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

BrookM wrote:Well of course he's a legal Yankee, otherwise he couldn't be prez in the first place. The CIA, NSA and FBI may be movie villains but at least they do proper background checks. Amirite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Only reason that guy is calling that is because the prick doesn't want to go.

You're not getting it Brook. Thats the argument being made. If Obama is not a native born son, so the legal argument goes, he can't be President. As such his orders of deployment are null and void.

The argument has been floating around for a bit. Surprising that they didn't drop the hammer on him, but instead released him...

The soldier could at least admit he just doesn't like having a Darkie for a President.

Tossers.

Lets not toss the racism element in here for absolutely no reason.

Translation: shut up you! Dern fereners....

Emperors Faithful wrote:

I, for one, would not like to get caught in enemy territory without the protection of the Geneva Convention. That means the enemy can legally do anything to you...ANYTHIIIIIIING!

I don't think the Geneva convention means anything to the people we're fighting against in Afghanistan/similar anyway.

Realistically I think it has to be taken as it having been proved ( or agreed upon ) that he is a US citizen.

If, in some odd twist it turned out he wasn't, and this fact had somehow been totally glossed over, woudl the election have to be rerun or would Biden assume the office by default ? I'm assuming there's no literal precedent for this is there ?

.... an election costs how much, and the economy is doing what at the moment ? I'm guessing this isn't the Govt. led spending they quite meant.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A bit like being incarcerating and torturing you in a Camp neatly positioned in a different country, whilst denying you basic human rights (as guaranteed by the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War) or a trial (as is the right of Civilians) by labelling you with the bizarre monicker of 'Illegal Combatants'?

Yeah. That would be terrible, and exactly the sort of thing America has never encouraged.

And now we've hit the US is Evil Tour. We made it to 44 posts this time before determining the US is evil and everyone else is as pure as the driven snow. Excellent.

Meanwhile the guys we're fightin just blew up a bunch of civies in two airports...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

I, for one, would not like to get caught in enemy territory without the protection of the Geneva Convention. That means the enemy can legally do anything to you...ANYTHIIIIIIING!

I don't think the Geneva convention means anything to the people we're fighting against in Afghanistan/similar anyway.

Realistically I think it has to be taken as it having been proved ( or agreed upon ) that he is a US citizen.

If, in some odd twist it turned out he wasn't, and this fact had somehow been totally glossed over, woudl the election have to be rerun or would Biden assume the office by default ? I'm assuming there's no literal precedent for this is there ?

.... an election costs how much, and the economy is doing what at the moment ? I'm guessing this isn't the Govt. led spending they quite meant.

Thats a good question. Probably Biden (shudder)

What happened when Nixon was kicked out (stepped down,) I'd assume it'd be the same deal if it indeed came to such a thing.

When was the rule about being a natural born citizen invented?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:What happened when Nixon was kicked out (stepped down,) I'd assume it'd be the same deal if it indeed came to such a thing.

Impeaching a President is a bit different from discovering he wasn't eligable in the first place though isn't it ? I can't see how they could do anything other than hold new elections.....so that won't happen.

This is the same clause that means that Arnie could/can never become President right ?

Kilkrazy wrote:When was the rule about being a natural born citizen invented?

Back in the Day....Its in the Constitution itself. Now thats Old School!

Vice President Ford replaced and pardoned Nixon, and then immediately tripped stepping off the podium.
Edit: Redy your 100% spot on. They would have to change th constitution to get Ahnold elected.

Vote Frazzled in 2012. He'll make the trains run on time!

Indeed. Arnies accent is a bit too obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When was the rule about being a natural born citizen invented?

Vote Frazzled in 2012. He'll make the trains run on time!

Oh hi Il Duce!

The rule for Native born has always been in the constitution.

If found ineligible the Vice President would assume office.

As for the Geneva Convention protections in all the years of war the Iraqis and Afgans have killed every single American soldier they have ever taken.

Some they kept alive until they found a good high quality video camera and a large sharp knife to cut the soldiers head off his body while he struggles.

I have no doubt there will be another video soon for the one they recently captured.

Never trust the nationals, the three Afgans that "walked him off the base" should be tracked down and given a free ride at 12k. They sold him to the Taliban.

And people wondor why soldiers are so bitter over this "war".

How many on this forum even knew we take prisoners and they do not?

I know.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrookM wrote:Indeed. Arnies accent is a bit too obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:When was the rule about being a natural born citizen invented?

Vote Frazzled in 2012. He'll make the trains run on time!

Oh hi Il Duce!

BrookM wrote:Touching but most of the countries the US is fighting don't adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

True, but it would be universally LEGAL to torue the guy. I understand why he might be concerned. Breaching the Geneva convention is by no means a little thing.

Also, let's not get into who follows the Geneva Convention and such. I know it means little today with America also torturing people, and meant even less during WW2, but the Geneva Convention cannot be ignored blatantly and repeatedly without reprecussion. Basically, without the Geneva Convention, it would be no holds barred and nukes would be flying everywhere. (How Ironic is the saying "All is fair in love and war" at this moment?)

Um, no. Nuclear war has nothing to do with the Geneva convention. the reason Russia didn't nuke the USA was because of the 15,000 warheads we have, and vice versa.

To your point though, Obama as President is not relevant to the Geneva Convention. Our soldiers would still fall under its protections.

I meant nukes among other methods of war, like just carpet bombing civilian sectors to hell. Tactical nuclear strikes are legal (I think) but just aiming at random civi cites of the enemy with one is not. (unless it can be maintained that there was a direct military threat or somesuch situated there).

Killing civis, with the objective of killing civis, is not legal.

Paper and pen is irrelevant. Only the the threat of the gun and a country's own internal morality means anything.

Gandhi freed India because he protested against the British. Had he been trying to free India from the imperial Japanese he would have ended up dead.

Frazzled wrote:Paper and pen is irrelevant. Only the the threat of the gun and a country's own internal morality means anything.

You do keep saying that. It's never been right, but you do keep saying it. The rule of law matters, and it matters more now than ever. With modern economies as mutually dependent as they, a nation simply cannot decide to ignore public sentiment and go it alone. The nations that have taken that course, such as North Korea, are the classic examples for failed nations.

Gandhi freed India because he protested against the British. Had he been trying to free India from the imperial Japanese he would have ended up dead.

Sbuh? Gandhi did it all by himself? No love for Nehra?

Meanwhile, Gandhi said the following about Jewish resistance to the Nazis "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. Collective suicide would have been heroism." Which is, ummm, a pretty out there concept from a really interesting character (seriously don't just watch the Attenborough film and assume Gandhi was genial if boring fellow, he was a lot more interesting than that).

And for what it's worth, the story of Gandhi as the liberator of India is one of those things that just isn't true. India's independence was inevitable long before Gandhi become involved, a shrinking world power can't maintain control over a country ten times its size for very long. Really, Gandhi's most impressive achievements were in achieving independence with relatively little bloodshed and in getting as close as he did to stopping partition into India and Pakistan.

Ghandi also admired Adolph for his stance and his vile deeds.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Paper and pen is irrelevant. Only the the threat of the gun and a country's own internal morality means anything.

You do keep saying that. It's never been right, but you do keep saying it. The rule of law matters, and it matters more now than ever. With modern economies as mutually dependent as they, a nation simply cannot decide to ignore public sentiment and go it alone. The nations that have taken that course, such as North Korea, are the classic examples for failed nations.

Try not to instantly go rabid there sebster. This is in discussion of a military context, not international business,w hich itself is just a
coalition of the willing.

A treaty did not keep us going to war with Russia. It did not keep Britain from going to war with Germany, or Germany with Russia.

Treaties are to be torn up at the worst of moments.

I like his (the reservist Major that this thread was originally about) attorney's name:

Orly Taitz

ORLY?

Now say that after each of her statements - it really sets the proper tone.

Frazzled wrote:Try not to instantly go rabid there sebster.

I'll try but I'm not promising anything.

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrookM wrote:Ghandi also admired Adolph for his stance and his vile deeds.

(Citation needed)

Damn right citation needed. It better be a good one to, Wikipedia doesn't count.

So I'm supposed to provide a scan from a Dutch book now?

Ghandi wrote:"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

Orly Taitz, could be pronounced in an interesting fashion...

Oh wait what I just said could also be. I bet there are many ways Orly Taitz could be pronounced.

(Tee hee) sorry.

BrookM wrote:So I'm supposed to provide a scan from a Dutch book now?

Ghandi wrote:"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

If it is necessary, yes. If it is a real quote, you'll find it elsewhere and in reliable sources. I'm calling on this. Having read a lot of his writing and speech's this doesn't sound a thing like him or something so far out of context that it doesn't make sense.

http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/edu_pro.htm

The reason why our soldiers take Talebans prisoner and their soldiers (I use the term loosely) don't take ours prisoner is because we have a better civilisation than theirs.

Part of the reason it's better is because we have things like the Geneva Convention by which we try to moderate what we recognise as the evils of war, even though being human and imperfect we don't always succeed.

If we abandon our legal structures for the supposed convenience of fighting a 'war on terror' we are doing the enemy's job for them and bringing ourselves down to their level.

BrookM wrote:So I'm supposed to provide a scan from a Dutch book now?

Ghandi wrote:"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

Huh, interesting. I can find the quote repeated in a lot of places on the internet, but no source or any context for the quote. Given it's pretty different from Gandhi's other comments towards Hitler*, but that anti-war efforts are almost always contorted into sympathy for the enemy, I'd be very surprised if the quote was true.

Anyhow, I'd like to do some more reading on this, do you know who Gandhi said it to, or when?


*He said if any war could be justified, it would be this one stop the genocide of race, but that ultimately he believed no war could be justified.

I'm getting the feeling that it will be shot down regardless, so unless I can find the Necronomicon and rez that fether I'm shutting up.

BrookM wrote:I'm getting the feeling that it will be shot down regardless, so unless I can find the Necronomicon and rez that fether I'm shutting up.

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression we were hounding you. It's just pretty out there, so I'd like to know a little more about it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason why our soldiers take Talebans prisoner and their soldiers (I use the term loosely) don't take ours prisoner is because we have a better civilisation than theirs.

Part of the reason it's better is because we have things like the Geneva Convention by which we try to moderate what we recognise as the evils of war, even though being human and imperfect we don't always succeed.

If we abandon our legal structures for the supposed convenience of fighting a 'war on terror' we are doing the enemy's job for them and bringing ourselves down to their level.

I'm still not certain what this has to do with a lawsuit alleging Obama's not legally qualified to be US President.

Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.


Link: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The president is legal per USC. Nuff said.

And surely being ELECTED counts?

Shamfrit wrote:And surely being ELECTED counts?

Have you paid attention to US Presidential elections over the last 17 years?

Shamfrit wrote:And surely being ELECTED counts?

Not at all. The issue is whether he was qualified to stand to run for President in the first place. presidential candidates have to have certain minimal (and judgin by history very minimal ) qualifications. Minimum age, native born son, incredbile ability to kiss babies, are pretty much it.

Indeed. Seeing as he can string whole sentences together and read without moving his lips it would seem he's over qualified.

..... swap you for Brown ?

No way Jose. I may disagree with the Obama the Wonder Pres on many issues, but we finally have a President who could go toe toe on the eloquence front with Blair.

(translation I offered to swap Bush for Blair a while back,.Now we're both stuck). France still has us beat with Mrs. Sarkozy, and that short French guy who keeps hanging around her.
"Yes I am President of France. Have you met my wife? Yes She is Hawt, what do you expect, we are French."

reds8n wrote:Indeed. Seeing as he can string whole sentences together and read without moving his lips it would seem he's over qualified.

..... swap you for Brown ?

Only if you take Bush and Bill Clinton too!

Maybe I've missed it, because I didn't realize there a was controversy about Obama's citizenship until this week, but does the board of elections make sure someone has the qualifications to run? Or at least check afterwards? Has there been anything from the board of elections, Senate, whomever saying they reviewed his documents and Obama is a natural born citizen?

Who knows? As noted by others, if Obama goes then we're faced with Biden as President. Even AlQaeda would feel sorry for us.

If only Biden would nominate Cheney to be VP. I know it'll never happen, but talk about the ulitmate matchup of grumpy old men who may say anything at any moment.

Ohh.. go on.

See, we've had the woman, the nice but useless, the charmer and now the disabled one, but we haven't had an ethnic one yet-- if we complete the set we get...err.... some tumblers and some of those sea monkeys they used to sell in the comic books.

I wouldn't worry too much, Blair will be first President of Europe soon enough so you'll be seeing plenty of him.

I mean, he's working as a peace envoy in the middle east nowadays, so you can tell what an effective....errr..


.. how about we throw in a couple of minor royals ? You guys like Fergie yeah ? Andrew ? Princess Michael of Kent ?

Fergie, yeah, she's great in the Black Eyed Peas!

(looks over shoulder-nope SWMBO not around)
How about Elizabeth Hurley? I'll trade Obama for Elizabeth Hurley? Seriously.

Prince Will I Am ...?

Hmm.. actually you never see the Black Eyed Peas and the royal family together at the same time do you ? Eh ? eh ? Know what I mean ? Best place to hide is in plain sight and so on.

EDIT : Hurley really is an android, the beginning of Austin Powers 2 is in fact genuine.

It's the teeth, dead giveaway.

So you're saying you could make like, 25,000,000 of them? Excellent....

Can I trade my wife for Hurley? And if she's an android, then it's just like Stepford Wives, you never have to worry about her losing her looks......

Makes me wonder when that stud Charles is finally going to do some ruling in the Empire.

dietrich wrote:If only Biden would nominate Cheney to be VP. I know it'll never happen, but talk about the ulitmate matchup of grumpy old men who may say anything at any moment.

Sorry, but we have Prince Phillip, the Queen's Consort. We win in the mad, doddery old racist front

Chinese food makes you go slitty eyed, that was one of his classics wasn't it?

Back to the topic, how did George Washington and the early presidents qualify when they were not native born citizens? Did Congress just enact that the 13 colonies would be retroactively regarded as US territory?

The language notes at the time of the Consitution.

Frazzled wrote:So you're saying you could make like, 25,000,000 of them? Excellent....

We did, decades ago. Don't tell anyone, but that's the real reason we gave up the Empire : didn't need it anymore. We British men live lives of luxury and ease, waited upon hand foot and %^^& by cyber babes 24/7.

How the hell else do you think we get the chance to watch cricket ? A game that can go on for a week and then run out of time so be declared a draw.. and yet NO ONE MINDS OR COMPLAINS.

This, my poor colonial cousin, is civilisation.

Can I trade my wife for Hurley?

Alas, dear friend, just like in some cheesy 60s pulp sci fi tale it is YOU who has already been replaced by your wife. Why do you think you suddenly find mowing the lawn so satisfying and have recently discovered that you have a favourite chair in the living room. Au revoir mon ami, it has been wonderful knowing you.

Frazzled wrote:They would have to change th constitution to get Ahnold elected.

That presumes Arnold runs as a Republican.

If he runs as Democrat, then the Constitution be damned!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrookM wrote:Makes me wonder when that stud Charles is finally going to do some ruling in the Empire.

Never gonna happen as long as the Queen has anything to do with it.

I suspect that she will abdicate to one of the punks before Charles ever has the chance to touch the crown.

Ahnold for president?

Don't be silly, no-one could imagine a washed-up actor becoming governor of California and then president.

If he didnt have anything to hide then why doesnt he prove his citizenship?

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So you're saying you could make like, 25,000,000 of them? Excellent....

We did, decades ago. Don't tell anyone, but that's the real reason we gave up the Empire : didn't need it anymore. We British men live lives of luxury and ease, waited upon hand foot and %^^& by cyber babes 24/7.

How the hell else do you think we get the chance to watch cricket ? A game that can go on for a week and then run out of time so be declared a draw.. and yet NO ONE MINDS OR COMPLAINS.

This, my poor colonial cousin, is civilisation.

I am not worthy!

Can I trade my wife for Hurley?

Alas, dear friend, just like in some cheesy 60s pulp sci fi tale it is YOU who has already been replaced by your wife. Why do you think you suddenly find mowing the lawn so satisfying and have recently discovered that you have a favourite chair in the living room. Au revoir mon ami, it has been wonderful knowing you.

It all makes sense now. I hate cutting the grass, yet do it weekly. WTF!!!

Ahtman wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Governments do what the voters wanted, Americans were told we won, so they promptly pulled all support.

Well most Americans didn't know much about the situation other than the Soviets were up to no good. We never voted on it so the whole voting angle doesn't make a lot of sense. We also don't vote like that, being a Republic.

Politicans who voted for Vietnam were ran out of office after we pulled out of Nam so it did work.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:The only way Americans as a whole ever gets solidly behind a war and the patching up afterward is when there is a DRAFT and rich folks kids are dying along side poor folks kids.

Is that why we were so gung-ho about Vietnam? I don't recall us being all that behind it even though there was a draft.

Vietnam was very unpopular because of the draft so we pulled out, this war will last forever because there is no draft so except for the 220,000 active duty families who do have close family members dying America does not give a rats ass. Otherwise why would we be fighting with worn out equipment and personnel in understrength units?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:This statement brought to you by a 22 year combat vet who retired from the sharp end of the stick. If you disagree with it, tough, you opinion on this matter does not matter unless you have been there.

Well that would make your opinion on military procedure valuable, but this is political science, not military science. Or are you also a 22 year veteran of the Kennedy School of Political Science? Also, you aren't the only person who has ever served in the military. Being in the Military doesn't grant special wisdom as it is a cross section of people and views with varying degrees of reliability gathered by a common cause. Just saying one was in the military in this instance doesn't give someone carte blance to think their views are unassailable. If not for any other reason than that this was a covert non-military operation by the US and not a military one. Are you now a 22 year veteran of the CIA? What happens when you meet another vet with a differing opinion? Does the world implode or something as two absolutely right but different opinions come together?

Show me another combat vet of this Iraq and Afgan conflict and I will agree, but having been there I do not think you are going to find any who disagree with me. As for the Kennedy School of Lets Get Poor Kids Killed While We feth Around With Things That Sound Good in Political Theory 101 class how many grads have ever put their ass in a combat zone to test that theory? A bunch of Senior Officers (read that as guys who will never fight in the front lines) have attended that school on the way for their 3 or 4 th star. Even their opinion of the curriculum and the Professors is better left unsaid.

You also seem to assume the only way anyone can ever know anything is by specific experience. This is a false dichotomy. There are multiple ways people can come to knowledge. If it was the only way there would be no need for books, such as Army Training manuals. Either your military service was incredibly myopic or you are just playing the internet tough guy because it is made up of more than just poor kids from the bad part of town and the US is made up more than people who care only about their kids. Your assessment is overly simplistic.


If you think you can learn to fight by a book please pick up a few FM's, go buy yourself a ticket and I will let my friends know you are coming. Be glad to see a civilian put his ass where his mouth is. After the first firefight where would you like your body sent?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Well that would make your opinion on military procedure valuable, but this is political science, not military science"

Forgot to comment on that. If this is political science and not military they why have we buried so many soldiers and crippled for life so many more?

And here I thought this thread was about the Obama administration choosing to just let this guy's orders be rescinded rather than bring him into court for dereliction of duty, amongnst a long list of other offenses they could get him for. Why would they make that choice?

Tyras wrote:And here I thought this thread was about the Obama administration choosing to just let this guy's orders be rescinded rather than bring him into court for dereliction of duty, amongnst a long list of other offenses they could get him for. Why would they make that choice?

True we have gotten off topic, my bad

I am betting they let him go to avoid a stink, it's a bad idea , others will follow.....

NeedleofInquiry, you keep changing the goalposts of your statements, you keep modifying your statements, and you keep confusing bravado with reason. You are not proving worth responding to anymore on this thread. I am suspicious that someone that has trouble grasping the simple idea that we learn things in different ways or that people can have differencing opinions, has ever even served, let alone for 22 years, putting you at an age of maturity and experience. You sound more like either a military obsessed 15 year old that wants to come across as an internet tough guy or a 40 something year old who never served but really, really wanted to so you bluster on the internet and put on a front thinking that it makes you above reproach.

Pretty funny. I have served over 22 years in combat arms in several "wars". I parened "Wars" because the civilian leadership of this country has not fully supported the army in a war since the Vietnam conflict, the last one where draftees served.

For every twenty army vets maybe 1 or 2 of them serve at the sharp end of the stick. I was one of those ones at the sharp end for most of my career. Most of us do not talk about it. I think that's a mistake.

I have no problem "grasping the simple idea that we learn things in different ways or that people can have differencing opinions".

My real life experiences however have shown me that civilians who have not been there there are clueless. They also tend to get angry when we tell them so.

If you don't like that, tough.


By the way if you can show me where I changed my opinion please do. I did agree we were getting off topic if that's what you mean.

" the civilian leadership of this country has not fully supported the army in a war since the Vietnam conflict, the last one where draftees served." If you want to show the First Gulf war as an exception to that go ask anyone who was there what the state of resupply was for ammunition and POL when we canceled operations and remember 911 was fresh in everyones minds where a lot of civilians got dead and we still attacked the wrong country.

Ｉ　ｄｉｄ　ａ　ｂｉｔ　ｏｆ　ｒｅｓｅａｒｃｈ　ｉｎｔｏ　ｔｈｉｓ　Ｏｒｌｙ　Ｔａｉｔａｚ．

Ｔｈｅ　ｆｏｌｌｏｗｉｎｇ　ｓｉｔｅｓ　ａｒｅ　ｗｏｒｔｈ　ａ　ｒｅａｄ．

http://drorly.blogspot.com/
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
http://acandidworld.net/2009/03/13/turnabout-is-obama-denialist-orly-taitz-really-a-lawyer-will-she-be-for-long/
http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisville-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Which-one-is-lying--Major-Stefan-F-Cook-USAR-or-Orly-Taitz
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz/

Obama, shakes head.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Politicans who voted for Vietnam were ran out of office after we pulled out of Nam so it did work.

Huh? You do realize that the Vietnam War lasted for 16 years, correct? If the politicians who voted for the war were 'run out of office', it wasn't until 16 years after the fact. Unless you're really talking about deployment expansions, in which case your point is massively over simplistic.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Vietnam was very unpopular because of the draft so we pulled out,

But you just said that the draft would necessarily produce popular support for any given war effort.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
this war will last forever because there is no draft so except for the 220,000 active duty families who do have close family members dying America does not give a rats ass. Otherwise why would we be fighting with worn out equipment and personnel in understrength units?

Vietnam was characterized by the draft. It lasted 16 years, and was home to many an understrength unit, and scads of worn out equipment. Conscripted armies are, almost by definition, poorly equipped when compared to professional forces.

If there had been a draft the Iraq War would have been much shorter, but for the reasons you believe. Imagine the public furor when it was discovered that citizens were conscripted on false pretenses.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As for the Kennedy School of Lets Get Poor Kids Killed While We feth Around With Things That Sound Good in Political Theory 101 class how many grads have ever put their ass in a combat zone to test that theory?

Quite a few; assuming you're only using the Kennedy School as a metaphor for all of the academy. The majority of the armed forces, even during the draft, were composed of people in the middle class. And lets not forget all those officers, because they do teach political theory in the military academies.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
A bunch of Senior Officers (read that as guys who will never fight in the front lines) have attended that school on the way for their 3 or 4 th star. Even their opinion of the curriculum and the Professors is better left unsaid.

No, I think its much better if its said. Preferably in the form of direct quotation.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
If you think you can learn to fight by a book please pick up a few FM's, go buy yourself a ticket and I will let my friends know you are coming. Be glad to see a civilian put his ass where his mouth is. After the first firefight where would you like your body sent?

So, wait, doesn't that mean that all of our soldiers who see combat for the first time should be dead by default?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Forgot to comment on that. If this is political science and not military they why have we buried so many soldiers and crippled for life so many more?

Because the military is dictated by the political process.

dogma wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Politicans who voted for Vietnam were ran out of office after we pulled out of Nam so it did work.

Huh? You do realize that the Vietnam War lasted for 16 years, correct? If the politicians who voted for the war were 'run out of office', it wasn't until 16 years after the fact. Unless you're really talking about deployment expansions, in which case your point is massively over simplistic.

Not correct, you may have not been born at the time I am guessing since you used the Wikpedia dates which start with the French. We did not get seriously into the was until after that idiot Kennedy took offense in Nov 63. We also had most of our troops out by the end of 71 when most of the other countries bailed out. We did have very small numbers still there in early 72. No troops after that. Not 16 years. And most of the politicians who supported the war and were still in office got handed their hat on the way out.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Vietnam was very unpopular because of the draft so we pulled out,

But you just said that the draft would necessarily produce popular support for any given war effort. No, I said doing a draft would either make the country go to total war or pull the troops out, how is your reading comprehension?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
this war will last forever because there is no draft so except for the 220,000 active duty families who do have close family members dying America does not give a rats ass. Otherwise why would we be fighting with worn out equipment and personnel in understrength units?

Vietnam was characterized by the draft. It lasted 16 years, and was home to many an understrength unit, and scads of worn out equipment. Conscripted armies are, almost by definition, poorly equipped when compared to professional forces.

Wrong again. Units were at or over authorized strength in country most of the war in Vietnam. In the bush counts were low in some units but that was because Hq's kept lots of guards around them. The vast troop increase after Tet was after the politicians getting their eyes opened by the reporters and realizing the generals had been lying to them and more units would be needed(sound familiar). Equipment was not in short supply at any time during the war. Not at all like the situation in the Crack or Afgan now. The American conscripted armies have normally had poor equipment at the start of an unexpected war, never in the middle of one if there was a draft in effect. But I would not expect a civilian to know that.

If there had been a draft the Iraq War would have been much shorter, but for the reasons you believe. Imagine the public furor when it was discovered that citizens were conscripted on false pretenses. Yeah, do image, bet we would be out of there by now? [u]I do, and I bet Bush and Cheney would be in Federal prisons [/u]

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As for the Kennedy School of Lets Get Poor Kids Killed While We feth Around With Things That Sound Good in Political Theory 101 class how many grads have ever put their ass in a combat zone to test that theory?

Quite a few; assuming you're only using the Kennedy School as a metaphor for all of the academy. The majority of the armed forces, even during the draft, were composed of people in the middle class. And lets not forget all those officers, because they do teach political theory in the military academies.

Wrong again donkey-cave. I am third generation military. I grew up in the military. I was at Benning when the 1st Cav got their ass shot off and the taxis came around. My father did one tour in Korea and three in Vietnam. I have done quite a few myself and I can promise you rich white kids are always in real short supply in combat zones and middle class kids are not that common anymore. The majority of the military that fights is made up of the lower class and minorities except doing a draft when every one gets to come. My church does family day style events for those kids in the Fort Knox area who have no families or their families can not afford to visit them a few weeks out from graduation. The vast majority are poor and have joined to feed their families. A very large number are from broken homes. That's why wars that use drafts are so unpopular.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
A bunch of Senior Officers (read that as guys who will never fight in the front lines) have attended that school on the way for their 3 or 4 th star. Even their opinion of the curriculum and the Professors is better left unsaid.

No, I think its much better if its said. Preferably in the form of direct quotation. One of those gentleman scholars from the JFK school of gak was a general who went around his superiors backs via another civilian and and got the then presidents OK to stab his superior in the back and take his place because his boss said we would need more troops. General Sheineski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki was the first victim, Adm Fallon was the next and General Betrayus as he is known to us was the snake who should have been Court Martialed and the civilians had no idea what went on. Guess how that came out for the troops?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
If you think you can learn to fight by a book please pick up a few FM's, go buy yourself a ticket and I will let my friends know you are coming. Be glad to see a civilian put his ass where his mouth is. After the first firefight where would you like your body sent?

So, wait, doesn't that mean that all of our soldiers who see combat for the first time should be dead by default? [u]They get real training, not enough in my opinion, but do not just read books. In addition, they are more of a danger the first year or so that a troop who has had a few years to build up his knowledge and reflexes and has blended into the squad.
[/u]

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Forgot to comment on that. If this is political science and not military they why have we buried so many soldiers and crippled for life so many more?

Because the military is dictated by the political process.

True, and we have never seized control like some banana republics elsewhere no matter how badly we have been abused and make no mistakes the US military is in bad shape at the moment, likely the worst shape it has ever been in, and you are clueless so I shall stop here and not waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise. Just remember this conversation we we do eventually pull after after God knows how many more American kids killed in a war that can not be won as we are fighting it now.

made a correction to the sequence.

Gen. Shinseki was wronged. The numbers needed for Iraq were dead on.

What do you mean though about Gen. Betrayus? I'm assuming you are referring to Gen. Petraus, but I don't recognize the context since he had nothing to do with Shinseki.

Oh yes he did, He did a back channel run via a retired army general who was a friend of Bush and got him canned. Look at the dates. He was promised a major command if he lied to congress and he did so.

He is a god damned snake. Do not like move on dot org but they have Betrayus dead to right.

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

The Washington post caught a piece of it, we all knew what happened, it was all over the O clubs how he had got away with it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/08/bush-gave-petraeus-back-channel-support/

I still don't see the connection with Shinseki. Shinseki retired in June 2003. Long before te name of Petraus had any meaning to anyone. His rise to popularity didn't even begin until his time in Mosul with the 101st. On neither of links you provided does it mention any connection between Shinseki retirement in 2003 and Petraus' rise to stardom.

Ironhide wrote:I still don't see the connection with Shinseki. Shinseki retired in June 2003. Long before te name of Petraus had any meaning to anyone. His rise to popularity didn't even begin until his time in Mosul with the 101st. On neither of links you provided does it mention any connection between Shinseki retirement in 2003 and Petraus' rise to stardom.

I do not how much of this is out on the Net. Betrayus while the CMDR of the 101st started his campaign against the then Chief of Staff Shinseki along with a bid for General Kerne for Kerne to take the Chief of Staff of the Army slot from Shiniski. Both of them went to Congress in back door meetings with facts of dubious accuracy. Betrayous should have been fired at that point but Kerne was a favorite of the President and the President did not like what Shinski was saying when asked by Congress. Kearne was even announced for the slot as Shinski's replacement. Several senior Senators got very mad and pulled it after it had been publicly announced. Kerne was invited to retire and did so. He remained a close friend of the Bush family. Shinski was replaced early and retired. No senior officers attended, a first in history. Betrayus kept his job but was discredited for the poor job he did in Iraq and his back dooring his Chief of Staff.

Kearne becomes a go between the President and subordinates of the current Chief of Staff and Betrayus was his favored son. General Casey got the Chief of Staff job and kept Betrayus at arms length in Iraq with the Multi command which he hosed up and then collected a lot of strap hangers he started taking with him from one assignment to the next, NOT army policy but he had Kearne and Kearne had the Pres at his back door.

In 2007 he got Multi command again and back doored several senators without either General Casey's or Adm. Fallon"s (His immediate superior at Centcom) approvals to not pull out of the Crack. Adm. Fallon recommended that Betrayus be retired buy Kearne protected him again. Adm. Fallon was retired instead and Betrayus took the job of the boss he had betrayed along with all the troops about what was really needed in the Crack and the monster was loose. God knows how many troops have died for the politics of General Betrayus.

Fallon- Jesus. I served under that guy (hey another vet! but I don't feel the need to trumpet it). Let a sub surface within freaking pistol range of a battle group, undetected. And then gets promoted. Not to mention circumnavigating the entire chain of command to freaking esquire.

I can't talk for Petraeus, I've never served under his direct command, but I've flown under Fallon and JESUS it was bad.

Never said Fallon was my idea of a guy I wanted on my team in country but he did get grill doored by Betrayus and got his job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silverthorne wrote:Fallon- Jesus. I served under that guy (hey another vet! but I don't feel the need to trumpet it). Let a sub surface within freaking pistol range of a battle group, undetected. And then gets promoted. Not to mention circumnavigating the entire chain of command to freaking esquire.

I can't talk for Petraeus, I've never served under his direct command, but I've flown under Fallon and JESUS it was bad.

Guessing you were Navy flyer?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Not correct, you may have not been born at the time I am guessing since you used the Wikpedia dates which start with the French.

No, the dates I used were memorized from a class on military history; with some cross reference from Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson (terrible book, but he is ex-military, so according to you he must be an expert). Either way, you're incorrect. The French presence ended in 1954 with their abdication of colonial authority.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We did not get seriously into the was until after that idiot Kennedy took offense in Nov 63.

Which would still mean the war lasted for 12 years. You're also ignoring the presence of our military advisers, which began in 1949.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We also had most of our troops out by the end of 71 when most of the other countries bailed out. We did have very small numbers still there in early 72. No troops after that. Not 16 years. And most of the politicians who supported the war and were still in office got handed their hat on the way out.

You have an extremely strange definition of 'handed their hat' because where I'm from serving in office for at least 9 years (using your erroneous dating system) is hardly being 'handed your hate'.

That said, the removal of troops you're referring to is known as the Nixon Doctrine, which did draw down the overall number of troops by roughly 270,000, but in 1971 there were still almost 200,000 American soldiers in Vietnam. That is not an insignificant presence.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No, I said doing a draft would either make the country go to total war or pull the troops out, how is your reading comprehension?

No, this is what you said:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The only way Americans as a whole ever gets solidly behind a war and the patching up afterward is when there is a DRAFT and rich folks kids are dying along side poor folks kids.

You didn't mention the potential for a reversal of your prediction. You may have intended that, but it isn't what you wrote.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Wrong again. Units were at or over authorized strength in country most of the war in Vietnam. In the bush counts were low in some units but that was because Hq's kept lots of guards around them.

Wait, how are you defining unit strength? By platoon? By company? By brigade? By squad? Because the distinction is very important. As is your understanding of authorized strength, because that varies a great deal as well.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The vast troop increase after Tet was after the politicians getting their eyes opened by the reporters and realizing the generals had been lying to them and more units would be needed(sound familiar).

The vast troop increase was BEFORE the Tet Offensive. That's why it is widely considered the single most demoralizing event in the entire course of the war. There were roughly 1 million soldiers on the ground during the offensive itself; the peak of American deployment. There were troop increases debated in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, but they were never enacted by dearth of monetary concerns and legitimate doubts regarding the tactical merit of the plan.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Equipment was not in short supply at any time during the war. Not at all like the situation in the Crack or Afgan now.

You seriously don't recall the problems with the switch the M-16? Or the issues with an army built around fighting platform centric conflict transitioning to an anti-guerrilla campaign? Because it isn't like those issues were dealt with over night, and they both relate directly to supply.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The American conscripted armies have normally had poor equipment at the start of an unexpected war, never in the middle of one if there was a draft in effect. But I would not expect a civilian to know that.

Wait, you're a 22 year combat vet? That means the first year you saw action was 1987. You've never been involved in a conflict which featured conscription. By your own definition of valid knowledge you are horribly ignorant.

Either way, there have been supply-side logistical problems in every major US conflict following Korea (which benefited from the minimal technological shift in the aftermath of the total mobilization of WWII). I'm not going to quote anymore numbers at you, because you don't seem interested in anything approaching reason.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Wrong again donkey-cave. I am third generation military. I grew up in the military. I was at Benning when the 1st Cav got their ass shot off and the taxis came around. My father did one tour in Korea and three in Vietnam. I have done quite a few myself and I can promise you rich white kids are always in real short supply in combat zones and middle class kids are not that common anymore.

Middle class (using the official definition of middle class) enlistment accounts for roughly 50% of military personnel. With the remainder split evenly between those households earning less than 30k a year, and those earning more than 50k a year. That said, the retention rate among recruits from households earning less than 30k is considerably higher than the other two demographics, which accounts for some of the observational disparity you're talking about.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The majority of the military that fights is made up of the lower class and minorities except doing a draft when every one gets to come.

Minorities are disproportionately represented, but income statistics contradict the point you're attempting to make. And I really have no idea what you're trying to get at with that comment about the 'military that fights'.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
My church does family day style events for those kids in the Fort Knox area who have no families or their families can not afford to visit them a few weeks out from graduation. The vast majority are poor and have joined to feed their families. A very large number are from broken homes. That's why wars that use drafts are so unpopular.

I have no idea how you're arriving at the conclusion that the draft is unpopular because only the poor fight.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
One of those gentleman scholars from the JFK school of gak was a general who went around his superiors backs via another civilian and and got the then presidents OK to stab his superior in the back and take his place because his boss said we would need more troops. General Sheineski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki was the victim♠ and General Betrayus as he is known to us was the snake who should have been Court Martialed and the civilians had no idea what went on. Guess how that came out for the troops?

What are you talking about? Shinseki and Petraeus aren't even related. If you want to blame someone for ignoring his recommendations, and intervening in the chain of command, blame Donald Rumsfeld.

Also, Petraeus never attended the Kennedy School of Government.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
True, and we have never seized control like some banana republics elsewhere no matter how badly we have been abused and make no mistakes the US military is in bad shape at the moment, likely the worst shape it has ever been in, and you are clueless so I shall stop here and not waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise.

The military is in bad shape, largely because we spent 30 years focusing on a platform based conflict that would never come. That said, most of your basic facts regarding military history are flat out incorrect, so I'm pretty sure I'm not the clueless one.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Just remember this conversation we we do eventually pull after after God knows how many more American kids killed in a war that can not be won as we are fighting it now.

You mean using proven counter-insurgency tactics?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I still don't see the connection with Shinseki. Shinseki retired in June 2003. Long before te name of Petraus had any meaning to anyone. His rise to popularity didn't even begin until his time in Mosul with the 101st. On neither of links you provided does it mention any connection between Shinseki retirement in 2003 and Petraus' rise to stardom.

I do not how much of this is out on the Net. Betrayus while the CMDR of the 101st started his campaign against the then Chief of Staff Shinseki along with a bid for General Kerne for Kerne to take the Chief of Staff of the Army slot from Shiniski. Both of them went to Congress in back door meetings with facts of dubious accuracy. Betrayous should have been fired at that point but Kerne was a favorite of the President and the President did not like what Shinski was saying when asked by Congress. Kearne was even announced for the slot as Shinski's replacement. Several senior Senators got very mad and pulled it after it had been publicly announced. Kerne was invited to retire and did so. He remained a close friend of the Bush family. Shinski was replaced early and retired. No senior officers attended, a first in history. Betrayus kept his job but was discredited for the poor job he did in Iraq and his back dooring his Chief of Staff.

Kearne becomes a go between the President and subordinates of the current Chief of Staff and Betrayus was his favored son. General Casey got the Chief of Staff job and kept Betrayus at arms length in Iraq with the Multi command which he hosed up and then collected a lot of strap hangers he started taking with him from one assignment to the next, NOT army policy but he had Kearne and Kearne had the Pres at his back door.

In 2007 he got Multi command again and back doored several senators without either General Casey's or Adm. Fallon"s (His immediate superior at Centcom) approvals to not pull out of the Crack. Adm. Fallon recommended that Betrayus be retired buy Kearne protected him again. Adm. Fallon was retired instead and Betrayus took the job of the boss he had betrayed along with all the troops about what was really needed in the Crack and the monster was loose. God knows how many troops have died for the politics of General Betrayus.

Never heard that. This mainly O-Club talk or did this story ever surface in the news? Seems Shinseki would have talked about this. Not to mention Kearne would have realized that trying something like that would hurt his career. After all, who wants a backstabber who only cares about his own ass running the US Army? Doesn't make since and sounds like conspiracy talk without factual info to back it up.

Holy smokes - we're going over Vietnam, again?

Well not going to get into a long one as I am heading to bed. so quickly:

Middle class (using the official definition of middle class) enlistment accounts for roughly 50% of military personnel. I live less that 2 miles from Fort Knox which is the home of Recruiting command. My next door neighbor works there. Want to try again?

"I have no idea how you're arriving at the conclusion that the draft is unpopular because only the poor fight. "
Well sure do not see a lot of rich kids coming in to fight, only saw then when we had the draft and by the way I did serve with draftees, and they were not happy to be there.

If the draft was popular then why has not the Congress enacted it? Answer that.

As for the military that fights, that would be 11B, 19D, SF, 11C, 11M, 19K, etc..., you getting the idea?

Not clerks, truck drivers, JAG lawyers or clerks, etc.... That 95 % of the army may defend themselves but they do not go down dark allies kicking down door and killing insurgents on a day to day basis. They are at least there but their risk is far less.

You apparently can not do math.

"Wait, you're a 22 year combat vet? That means the first year you saw action was 1987" Not sure how you got that but wrong.

You also do not know what authorized MTOE is nor the difference between supply and training.

Petraeus did spent time there as part of his Staff College time and even gave a speech on the merits of the JFK school for military idiots.

"The vast troop increase was BEFORE the Tet Offensive. That's why it is widely considered the single most demoralizing event in the entire course of the war. There were roughly 1 million soldiers on the ground during the offensive itself; the peak of American deployment. There were troop increases debated in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, but they were never enacted by dearth of monetary concerns and legitimate doubts regarding the tactical merit of the plan. "

We took a while to build to that but right after TET the generals asked of an additional 200, 000 troops and were granted 100,000.

Your "because we spent 30 years focusing on a platform based conflict that would never come" is about the strangest thing you have said tonight.

How do you think the first Gulf war would have gone with that platform based equipment?

BTW, if you can pick the wars we are going to fight 10 or 15 years out which is the normal procurement cycle then please contact DOD, we need you.

We are in bad shape because we have broken our training cycle due to lack of personnel and our equipment due to overuse, lack of maintenance time, lack of replacement parts and various other things too long to list but not because we planned for the wrong war. Not to mention stop loss and putting off schooling for the next level jobs due to no drew time.

You can even make it to SSG now without going before a board or even having any official training, sounds good unless you are one of the privates and your not prepared SSG returns to base and leaves you out there somewhere for the bad guys to find.

The proven COIN tactics that you are talking about consisted of us bribing the guys shooting our troops not to if we gave each one a little over $100 a month and allowing then to wipe out the minorities in their neighborhoods.

Perhaps you should hunt down a vet in your area who has actually been there. Do you really think we have succeeded? What is your measurement?

Anyway

Have a good night..... :}

Needle,
Just out of curiosity, what exactly did you do again in your 22 years and where did you serve? What units where you with? I just ask because I've read this kind of talk before on another gaming forum a couple of years back from someone and it sounds really familiar.

I think this whole conversation should be opened under a new thread.

Yeah, totally OT here. Wait a second, what forum are we in again? (just being cheeky)

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I live less that 2 miles from Fort Knox which is the home of Recruiting command. My next door neighbor works there. Want to try again?

Cool. My next door neighbor works at UPS. Apparently I'm now a reputable expert on the logistics of commercial post. I'll be sure to tack that on to my next resume.

Anyway, here is a recruitment profile study from just before 9/11.

In pictographic format:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Well sure do not see a lot of rich kids coming in to fight, only saw then when we had the draft and by the way I did serve with draftees, and they were not happy to be there.

Unless you started service prior to 1977 (which might be true, I don't know how old you are) that is impossible.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
If the draft was popular then why has not the Congress enacted it? Answer that.

When did I claim the draft was popular? All I did was question your assertion that the institution of a draft would generate popular support for any given conflict.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As for the military that fights, that would be 11B, 19D, SF, 11C, 11M, 19K, etc..., you getting the idea?

Not clerks, truck drivers, JAG lawyers or clerks, etc.... That 95 % of the army may defend themselves but they do not go down dark allies kicking down door and killing insurgents on a day to day basis. They are at least there but their risk is far less.

Yeah, I got that. I just don't think your percentage is accurate. The US has a little under 1.5 million active duty personnel. Between the Army and Marines we maintain 14 active divisions. Even assuming minimum strength across all of them (because I don't want to pull up the stats on each division) that's 140,000 soldiers; the vast majority of whom will serve in combat. That's at least 10% of the enlisted population. With that many combat personnel its hard to believe that the lower income groups would be disproportionately present given the relatively small percentage of enlisted personnel from such a background.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
You apparently can not do math.

"Wait, you're a 22 year combat vet? That means the first year you saw action was 1987" Not sure how you got that but wrong.

I assumed you were still active given your discussion of Iraq/Afghanistan. That assumption may be incorrect, but the math is right: take 2009 subtract 22 years and arrive at 1987.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
You also do not know what authorized MTOE is nor the difference between supply and training.

I'm fully aware of the difference between supply and training. Aware enough to realize that they are intrinsically linked. A military built to fight a platform centric conflict is also equipped to fight a platform centric conflict. Since, barring special forces, you can only train on the equipment you have the issues inherent in dropping an Army built for the European theatre into Vietnam is one of both supply and training.

Honestly, I'm fairly astounded that you feel justified in claiming I don't know anything when I didn't make any grand sweeping assertion of knowledge in this area.

But yeah, Modification Table of Organization? That what you're getting at? Because that's what I was referring to when I said its important to clarify what you mean by authorized strength.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Petraeus did spent time there as part of his Staff College time and even gave a speech on the merits of the JFK school for military idiots.

Which isn't really all that significant given that he has a much longer affiliation with other educational establishments. Plus, you know, JFK is one of the best strategic planning institutes in the nation.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We took a while to build to that but right after TET the generals asked of an additional 200, 000 troops and were granted 100,000.

They didn't get the 100,000. Westmoreland was able to secure an additional 10,500 soldiers during the offensive, but they were previously authorized. The closest we came to sending more troops was Johnson's plan to call-up 60,000 reservists with the intent of sending 13,000 to Vietnam. Of course, that never came to pass and once Nixon was elected the draw down began.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Your "because we spent 30 years focusing on a platform based conflict that would never come" is about the strangest thing you have said tonight.

How do you think the first Gulf war would have gone with that platform based equipment?

Do you mean without? Because the Desert Shield/Storm went well because of that equipment.

That said, the failings of the military in the context of protracted combat (you know, that thing which is exposing our weaknesses) are directly related to a focus on platform technology in maneuver warfare. We invested an awful lot in staying 3 technical generations ahead of the nearest equivalent force, but very little in infrastructural requirements of soldiers operating in an urban live-fire zone. Hence the lack of survivable light vehicles, body armor, and well supplied towed artillery.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
BTW, if you can pick the wars we are going to fight 10 or 15 years out which is the normal procurement cycle then please contact DOD, we need you.

You know, that's pretty much the point of military planning. The DoD pays a lot of very smart, knowledgeable people to study landscape of future need. There's that whole bit about having a budget to work under, it requires prioritization and foresight.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We are in bad shape because we have broken our training cycle due to lack of personnel and our equipment due to overuse, lack of maintenance time, lack of replacement parts and various other things too long to list but not because we planned for the wrong war.

From my perspective (which is admittedly focused on the strategic) those are all elements involved in the preparation for conflict. The last 30 years have been characterized by the institution of high tech systems designed to minimize the human presence, and indirectly maximize maintenance space and training time, in any given war zone. This is the exact opposite of what is required in any form of counter-insurgency/nation-building exercise.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Not to mention stop loss and putting off schooling for the next level jobs due to no drew time.

I agree with this. The armed services as a whole need to put more effort into attracting a more diverse recruitment base (the income distribution is solid, but certain studies have pointed to an increasingly homogeneous cultural profile). How this could be accomplished is the stuff of research papers, but would almost certainly feature adjustments to the GI Bill.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
You can even make it to SSG now without going before a board or even having any official training, sounds good unless you are one of the privates and your not prepared SSG returns to base and leaves you out there somewhere for the bad guys to find.

Agreed.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The proven COIN tactics that you are talking about consisted of us bribing the guys shooting our troops not to if we gave each one a little over $100 a month and allowing then to wipe out the minorities in their neighborhoods.

That was one of Britain's favorite COIN methods during its Imperial period.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Perhaps you should hunt down a vet in your area who has actually been there. Do you really think we have succeeded? What is your measurement?

I know more than a few vets, some of them high school classmates.

But, to your question, no. I don't think we've succeeded. I also don't think it will be possible to measure the success or failure of the conflict for at least 15 years; provided the whole nation doesn't implode before that. To my mind Iraq is a conflict in the same genre as those limited wars which characterized the failures inherent in the Metternich system of power balancing. It was a strategic play, not a fight for life: not the kind of war that sees a parade on V-Day.

Kilkrazy wrote:Ｉ　ｄｉｄ　ａ　ｂｉｔ　ｏｆ　ｒｅｓｅａｒｃｈ　ｉｎｔｏ　ｔｈｉｓ　Ｏｒｌｙ　Ｔａｉｔａｚ．

Ｔｈｅ　ｆｏｌｌｏｗｉｎｇ　ｓｉｔｅｓ　ａｒｅ　ｗｏｒｔｈ　ａ　ｒｅａｄ．

http://drorly.blogspot.com/
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
http://acandidworld.net/2009/03/13/turnabout-is-obama-denialist-orly-taitz-really-a-lawyer-will-she-be-for-long/
http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisville-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Which-one-is-lying--Major-Stefan-F-Cook-USAR-or-Orly-Taitz
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz/

So KK, now that you have an indepth back ground on the subject, how do you feel about Orly Taitaz?

I wouldn't call it in-depth, but it made me not want to spend any more time researching it. It was just the first five results that popped up in Google.

I thought this thread would benefit from a bit of direction towards actual research rather than just speculation.

Sure, KK, sure. I think you're just into Orly Taitaz-it would explain the avatar


Modquisition on:
Gentlemen lets maintain politeness here or this thread will be closed.

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought this thread would benefit from a bit of direction towards actual research rather than just speculation.

You must be new to the internet.