VOTE today

In article
. com,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
.com
,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
om,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
.com
,
"Johnny Sunset" wrote:

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
president.

Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.

Mr. Press:

Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
combined with implied insult. [Yawn]

See my reply to Bill Sornson.

Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?

You must obey a lawful order given by a police officer.
Commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers
have better things to do than micro-manage their troops.

The authority of police officers is limited to enforcing laws. A
commanding officer can control every minute of a subordinates life if
he/she so desires.

Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
also have something to offer to society.

Everybody knows me as a dupe of the most recent special
interest group to persuade me with their program.

You ever watch movies that trade in a subject you have
mastered? Sickening, is it not? You talk as if
everything you know about the military you got from
movies.

I was never claiming to be an expert in military life. However, some
things are evident based on deduction from available (and basically
undisputed) facts.

Do you dispute that there is little alternative but to obey an order
given by a commanding officer when one is on active duty service?

Sure. That commanding officer is going to have trouble
when his efficiency reports are written and he comes up
for promotion.

Is not the ultimate purpose of the military to settle disputes by
violent means?

Yeah, whatever.

You deduce, argue, and dispute from your facts, but you
do not know.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

Mr. Press [1] fails to contradict with facts my point about the
relative lack of control over one's life in military service compared
to civilian life, and also does not answer the question about the
ultimate purpose of the military.

[1] Your opportunity to complain about third person reference, Mr.
Sornson.

I failed to contradict fact. Now _there_ is an
indictment. You talk and argue and dispute, but you do
not know.

I reckon that most people in the military have better
control over their lives than you do.

Really? Are military personnel at will to quit the military anytime
they want?

Military people sign contracts, the same as civilians.
The contracts can be renegotiated, the same as
civilians.

Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:

Most employees in many countries (in particular the US) have no
contract, but are at will employees. For example, I have the right to
walk off my job at any time, and similarly, my employer has the right
to terminate my employment without notice, and for any reason other
than those specifically prohibited by law.

Do US soldiers in Iraq have the ability to terminate their contracts
and leave the service? I think not. In fact, the Department of Defense
has issued "stop loss" order requiring soldiers to serve BEYOND their
contractually agreed upon term.

Do civilians get sent to jail if they quit their jobs?

Civilians also suffer the consequences of breaking a
contract.

Except for a few high level professional positions in the US (since
this discussion started out with the US as the relevant country),
contractual arrangements for employees in the US are almost unheard of.
The only action that can be taken against an "at will" employee for
quitting a job is denying unemployment compensation payments.

The military prefers to discharge any person
that prefers not to be there, rather than housing and
feeding him.

Not if it wants to set an example to keep other soldiers fighting in an
unpopular war (e.g. Iraq).

That discharge under less than honorable
conditions may eventually persuade the recipient that
he would rather have spent the remainder of his
enlistment in the stockade than be refused those jobs
on civvy street.

A very different situation from leaving a job in civilian employment -
especially if one accepts a job offers from a new employer before
quitting the current job (a common and accepted practice in the US).

But this is all legalese. A man gives his word, and
lives up to it.

And women...?

What if the other party makes false or misleading promises? Is the man
or woman still bound by his or her promise?

Yes.

Nuremberg Principle IV does not agree in the case of the soldier being
asked to participate in a war of aggression (e.g. the US conquest of
Iraq).

What are you talking about? This is not responsive.

All your theory and disputation do not change the fact
of the matter: you do not know.

Right now there are people in the US in prison because they insisted in
quitting the military. Please cite a case where a civilian has been
sent to prison for quitting his/her job.

It is a matter of contracts. When enlisting in the
military one agrees to certain terms. Since you know
the terms of enlistment, we may take for granted that
military personnel knew the terms.

As for those people in prison, have you read the
court-martial record? Have you talked with those
peoples comrades in arms? What do you know? Huh? Other
than what some third party has told you?


Do you dispute that a person in the military can receive punishment
including prison or death for disobeying orders? The most that can be
done to a civilian employee for disobeying orders is termination of
employment, and in a very few cases, so financial compensation for
violating fiduciary responsibility. Does anyone dispute this?

The basic facts are clear, and do not require military experience to
obtain, no matter how much some want to belabor the point.

What do you know, other than your facts? And what do
you mean to convey by reiterating them? About military
life you do not know, and you do want to know.

--
Michael Press