Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack
I did a little more looking into this...this guy is on welfare...Canadian welfare... keep dolling out your cash to keep our deserters. From the article it looks as if they all are on welfare. Enjoy! Your hard earned cash going to these guys. One of them was in the Marines for less than a year and didn't even go to Iraq. Looks like you are paying for him too!
Good, like I honestly care. Our taxes already go to some pretty stupid things, a minor blip on the radar. They're on Welfare? Who would have thunk it? I know being a Canadian myself it's a pain in the *** to get a job, I imagine they're not getting jobs tossed left and right to them either. At least our government and our people still have some humanity left to give them some money for living. You seem to imply they should be so lucky to be bumming off our streets for spare change and mouth wash.
I could continue to respond to your previous comments, however looking through it, you seem to be missing some key points (I guess by your mind set, so am I *shrugs*) I mean, if you can't see that Bush has contradicted your constitution with such things as the Patriot Act and a slew of other brainiac plans since he's been in power, then that's your loss more then it is ours.
But one point I would like to make is the way you tried to explain how that Oath is constructed. If it is indeed the way you worded it and is how it's supposed to be, then it too, much like most things I tend to see set as law or rule in the US.... Contradicting.
"There is no number in which orders shall be followed. It doesn't read that one will defend the Constitution THEN SECONDLY the President...THIRDLY the officers...etc. It is all one and the same."
If a soldier is to obey and uphold the constitution as equally as obey and follow the orders of the President of the US, and also follow the orders of their officers.... then when one or all three contradict oaths to each section..... what is one supposed to do? Follow the Constitution? Follow the President in what he tells you to do? Or follow the officers over the President in which they have direct command over you?
Now if you say the soldier is supposed to follow the President's orders over the Officer's..... then you already begin to contradict your explination on how this oath works and you don't seem to understand it yourself.
Either that or this oath is ment to be contradicting, and therefore nulls itself once again, and is a complete joke.
Or..... it falls back to my explination on upholding the constitution first, then following the orders of the president second, and the officers' third.
And if it follows under my explination (Which if it's supposed to make any sense, it should) Then we fall back to my explination and justification for this former soldier to resist the war in Iraq and any orders issued by the President of the US.
You got some screwed up country down there.