If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#571
|
|||
|
|||
|
#572
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the peabrained moron" wrote
"Brett" wrote in message ... "George Z. Bush" wrote: ... in my day the law didn't require you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date. It did, You sure about htat? Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was correct. |
#573
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:06:33 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . .. On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry McAullife dispatches. I am not familiar with Mr McAullife. Chairman of Dumbocrapic Nazi Comintern or DNC. [snip] I find it very hard to beleive that you blame all that on Kerry's testimony. No, he had help. But it was still TREASON. [snip] Why? It was the same view that was help by a great many ordinary Americans at that time. Kennedy and Johnson's legacy to the body politic. [snip] If we killed that many and they didn't give up, or we killed fewer and they didn't give up, isn't the essential fact that they didn't give up? Having the ability to indecriminately execute anybody who says you nay helps a great deal. Wonder how docile the North Vietnamese population would have been had they known just how bad the losses actually were. [snip] Do you really think that absent domestic protests the US would ever have pulled our ground forces out of Vietnam while the war continued? Wouldn't have been any need to absent the RVN capitulating. [snip] I find it odd that you think that would be a good thing. Who says it is? Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#574
|
|||
|
|||
|
#575
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:57:14 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:
[snip] Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed to vote at all, mooting recounts. Congresswoman Brown is a barking moonbat. She gives lunatics a bad name. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#576
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree with them. Urban myth, I think, growing out of it being both technically illegal and practically pointless to fire the .50" spotting rifles for 106mm recoilless rifles at people (it fired explosive rounds designed to make an obvious flash when they hit the tank you were aiming for, hence violating Hague rules). I've heard stories about how you had to claim you were shooting a .50" Browning at the enemy's web gear or helmets or rifles and it was just too bad their bodies got in the way. However, I've got the UK tactical guidance for the .50" heavy machine gun at work, and it's almost enthusiastic in its description of the effects on personnel as well as light armoured vehicles, soft-skinned transport, patrol boats and even helicopters and aircraft if you manage a hit. Doesn't sound like there are legal worries about firing .50" machineguns at people in the UK. (*Please* don't shoot one at me. They sound like very effective weapons. I would hate to have to go through the trouble of cowering and appeasing you at the time to persuade you to stop, and then hunting you down and killing you later ) Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs? I daresay a lawyer could take the case, and even that there were instances of illegality (where a pilot didn't land pre-strike and get signed declarations from everyone who might be hit that 'I agree that I am (delete as applicable) (a) an active armed member of the Viet Cong who will be carrying my weapon when this airstrike hits, (b) a uniformed soldier of the North Vietnamese Army, (c) so strongly sympathetic to those groups that I directly supply aid and comfort to them'. Technically, without those signed declarations from every single person you might possibly injure with your strike, you're potentially a war criminal for not taking all possible precautions to protect noncombatants. However, I don't think you'd get a case out of it. The GCs require you to try to avoid noncombatant casualties where they would be disproportionate to the military results, not to eschew them completely. (As a data point, notice how few civilians were killed per ton of bombs dropped when the B-52s hit Hanoi in late 1972) Bear in mind that the US and UK were attacked for "illegally" using cluster munitions in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. While there have been cries that assorted Presidents, secretaries of states and senior air marshalls will be prosecuted and sentenced to life at hard labour for their wickedness, none of these claims have amounted to much more than hot air. -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#577
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out in February. I actually grab the copy that the comm guy used and read up to page 20 while half paying attention to the other book reviews. I was hooked by page 20 so I'm resolved to buy it this weekend. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#578
|
|||
|
|||
The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th birthday. ON the 18th birthday? Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me not to worry about it. Walt |
#579
|
|||
|
|||
|
#580
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote:
From: (WalterM140) The law has always required males to register (since the original establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th birthday. ON the 18th birthday? Actually I believe there was a grace period. Thirty days? Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me not to worry about it. Walt Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he was not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law? If you went straight to active duty you would have been classified 1-C. If you went DEP you would have been classified 1-D. If the draft had stayed in effect and you had completed the mininum total service, 6 years then (8 years now) IIRC, you would have been classified 4-A I registered for the draft in November 1960 and I was 21 years and two months old. I had enlisted at 17 and wasn't required to register at that time. I was classified as 4A, still got my draft card, and I had only served about 3 and a half years. Didn't get my discharge until July 1963 after completion of my six-year obligation. Minor nit pick but you're otherwise right. Shocked the hell out of the draft board ladies when I walked in to register at 21 though. I don't think either of them had ever registered a kiddie cruiser. George Based on many of your posts I seriously doubt you served a day in any branch of the military. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 196 | June 14th 04 11:33 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |