A
archangel
Guest
Said1 said:Well, what do you think. Should enlistment be seperate?
ask shattered or kathy...I know nothing!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Said1 said:Well, what do you think. Should enlistment be seperate?
archangel said:ask shattered or kathy...I know nothing!
Shattered said:Good grief. Shut the hell up and stop pouting.
archangel said:I know nothing
GotZoom said:I loved watching Hogan's Heroes.
Said1 said:That's not exactly what I mean. An international peace keeping/military force woudn't be needed if we could all get along.
Johnney said:there was some fiasco about this a few years ago. a soldier refused to wear the blue cover. nto sure how it turned out though.
pegwinn said:Check this out.
So, is everyone advocating that you can walk to recruiters row and see......
US ARMY
US NAVY
US AIRFORCE
US MARINES
UN PEACEKEEPERS
all in a row? Kinda like the foreign legion? Wow, what a concept.
pegwinn said:I was on I&I duty in Oklahoma City back in 1988 and our I&I got orders to the multinational force in Cambodia. Apparently there are two types of orders to UN postings. Individual PCS are classed as Joint Duty and normally reserved for Officers getting a ticket punched. Unit orders are treated as UDP. Remember SPC New from the Army a while back? His cause was just but he got hammered for disobeying American orders if memory serves.
GunnyL said:You are correct. I believe he is STILL fighting the issue.
And I know all too well the "disobeying and order" blanket the military throws around.
My question concerns the legitimacy of THAT order. Technically, one would assume it is a lawful order since the military has punished at least this one guy for it.
Ethically, I am not so sure it is a lawful order. When we sign the dotted line and raise our right hands we swear to serve the US and protect the US against all enemies.
My argument is that if one is suddenly handed off to an organization that is not the US nor does it represent the US nor its interests, does that not change the parameters of the bargain made between the individual and the government?
MissileMan said:While I don't think a US soldier should be under control of a UN commander, I believe the oath also includes "follow the orders of the officer's over me and the orders of the President". It doesn't state that the order can't be "go over here and follow the orders of this UN commander".
pegwinn said:I don't know. SPC New attempted to prove the orders were both unlawful from a military perspective and unconstitutional to boot. The court martial judge disagreed because the specific orders New disobeyed came from American lips. Unlike civilian courts, courts martial tend to ignore the big picture and focus on the specifics of the crime at ground zero. Likely a civil court might've acquitted him. If not, then one of the appellate courts would've overturned it. I think after the CM his next step was court of mil appeals then USSC.
Bottom line is so long as we are member nation, the USA will likely be helping the UN. Worse news is that using convoluted thinking, our politicians will more often put our guys under command of foreigners. Situation sux.
nosarcasm said:as a soldier you follow orders.
If your country decide that you have to attack country Y then you do it.
If you country decides you wear a blue helmet because of diplomatic
deals made elsewhere you do it.
Pick and choose soldiers need a bullet to the neck.
Joseph got that right.
nosarcasm said:as a soldier you follow orders.
If your country decide that you have to attack country Y then you do it.
If you country decides you wear a blue helmet because of diplomatic
deals made elsewhere you do it.
Pick and choose soldiers need a bullet to the neck.
Joseph got that right.