 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote: You seem to enjoy naively dismissing the possiblility that the extremists living in Iraq could be influential enough to cause problems down the line. |
You're missing the point that these extremists are going to cause problems down the line no matter what. Why tear some fine-ass honeys away from their soldier boys in order to placate some crazys that are going to hate us no matter what we do? Seems rather non-sensical to me. |
One, you're assuming that only "extremists" will object.
Two, you're assuming the US Army is suddenly concerned with placating the opinions of "extremists" (if so, why are TF20, TF Iron Horse and the d-boys hunting their asses daily).
This is not a new policy, nor is it one just for the mideast. The same thing applied in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and in peacetime in a number of situations sailors with their girls in every port, etc.
The issue actually identified by the CO was focus on the unit's mission. If a large portion of the horny young unattached contingent of the US forces is suddenly looking for bangtail, and an equally large contingent of Iraqi women are looking for green card city, then you have a FUBAR in the making. Like I said earlier, we are not running a ****ing dating service.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Theben
You're dismissing the possibility of other fence-sitters seeing this and saying, "hey, maybe the americans aren't so bad...," |
Or unmarried Iraqi males, or parents, or siblings, saying "They're stealing our women!!
If this becomes common practice (it won't), how long do you think it'll be, in an occupied country full of hotheads (and I'm talking about average Iraqis here, plus the US troops) with Kalashnikovs, before jealousy or family issues lead somebody to shoot a US troop, or try to, and then you get your response by US forces, in a "normal," previously non-hostile neighborhood.
Sorry to disappoint some of the "noble" civvy types, but the conduct of the mission of the United States in occupying Iraq is a higher priority than the ***** chase of some E3s and E4s.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000 time: 21:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Or unmarried Iraqi males, or parents, or siblings, saying "They're stealing our women!!
If this becomes common practice (it won't), how long do you think it'll be, in an occupied country full of hotheads (and I'm talking about average Iraqis here, plus the US troops) with Kalashnikovs, before jealousy or family issues lead somebody to shoot a US troop, or try to, and then you get your response by US forces, in a "normal," previously non-hostile neighborhood.
Sorry to disappoint some of the "noble" civvy types, but the conduct of the mission of the United States in occupying Iraq is a higher priority than the ***** chase of some E3s and E4s. |
so you are implying that if officers were marrying Iraqi women that would be okay?
I'm sorry, but ***** is very important. More important than the search fro imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kirnwaffen
|
 |
Tryin' hard to chill in the city of Dis
Jul 2000 time: 22:31
|
|
quote: In military law, an order from proper authority is presumed to be valid and lawful unless shown otherwise, and the burden of proving the order invalid or unlawful is on the party who would disobey that order. That means that marginal or questionable orders will be viewed in favor of the command authority. There's always a line somewhere, between "questionable judgment" and "clearly unlawful" but where that line falls is a pain in the ass to determine. |
So basically, these guys have 2 options:
1)Take the Artical 15 and move on.
2)Raise the stakes and request trial by court martial.
Number 1 is definitely the better option for the soldiers involved. Option 2 would be better for everyone else, if they were to win. Problem is the long odds. Last time I checked, conviction rates for courts martial was above 95%. If they lost that, they could appeal to CAAF, and hope to illicit sympathy from the civillian judges there (also not likely). If, by some miracle, they won, it would establish a precedent that would be better for service members. However, by losing, they're basically screwed for life.
Of course, the army could always stop being so goddamned assinine, and realize that this could create even more recruiting and retention problems than they already have...
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|