Cuban missile crisis proved otherwise. I'd say that was considered a security threat by the US.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
acquiring nuclear weapons has little to do with security from neighbors.
The average person doesn't have to sign a declaration every year that they haven't committed any driving offences - your anaolgy fails.FEOS wrote:
Do you have to be "coerced" to get a driver's license, or any other regulatory requirement? Nobody with half a brain would characterize that as "coercion."So you have to be coerced into doing the morally right thing? OK.I have to take training, sign paperwork, and fill out financial disclosure forms every year because of the laws I mentioned.
Nor does the average person do so in relation to employment - signing an employment contract once, or the official secrets act once, is plenty good enough.
Seems your govt trusts you less.
Fuck Israel
Nor is yours or mineJay wrote:
Neither one is of any consequence. One was a wiki-warrior child and the other was a kid that had no real arguments and very narrow viewpoints. He's fantastic at arguing literature, very shallow at pretty much everything else, but oh my does he have an opinion on everything.Turquoise wrote:
Flaming was ok, but Uzique's opinion is of no real consequence.
Fuck Israel
Haditha thread was closed apparently http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3038105
Crikey
No jail time whatever?A US marine who admitted charges linked to the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005 should face no time in detention, a judge has recommended.
The decision by the judge at Camp Pendleton, California, must be approved by the commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command.
Sgt Frank Wuterich faced a maximum of three months after admitting dereliction of duty in a plea deal.
He was one of eight marines charged over the killings at Haditha.
The charges against six were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.
Military judge Lt Col David Jones said his hands had been tied by the terms of the plea agreement. However, he said he would recommend that Wuterich's rank be reduced to private.
Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.
His former squad members testified during the hearings that they were not fired upon nor did they find any weapons at the scene of the killings.
Wuterich told the court that he ordered his men to "shoot first, ask questions later" so they would not hesitate in attacking the enemy, but he never intended to harm any civilians.
Crikey
Fuck Israel
Maximum of three months?!
Negotiating the murder of 24 civilians down to dereliction of duty is good going.
Fuck Israel
Because Israel has threatened anyone with them, right?AussieReaper wrote:
Add the fact that Israel has 200 or so nuclear warheads...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Once again....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Faced with a conventional war Israel would use nukes on a non-nuclear enemy, and everyone else within range.
No hypocrisy there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Faced with a conventional war Israel would use nukes on a non-nuclear enemy, and everyone else within range.
They're already talking about using nukes to prevent Iran ..... gaining nukes.We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
No hypocrisy there.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-25 04:17:34)
Fuck Israel
It most certainly does not. I don't have to sign a declaration saying I haven't committed any offenses. That's not what it's about. It's about heading off the appearance or even unwitting conflict of interest.Dilbert_X wrote:
The average person doesn't have to sign a declaration every year that they haven't committed any driving offences - your anaolgy fails.FEOS wrote:
Do you have to be "coerced" to get a driver's license, or any other regulatory requirement? Nobody with half a brain would characterize that as "coercion."
So you have to be coerced into doing the morally right thing? OK.
Normal, everyday, often annually renewed, agreements for employment in industry: Non-disclosure agreements. Non-competition agreements. Etc.
Those are "coercion" to "do the right thing" for "morally bankrupt" individuals...to use your logic. If you've ever signed one as a pre-condition for work, then you must be "morally bankrupt."
And I only have to do these disclosure forms because of my current position. When I leave this position in a few months, I won't have the requirement any longer.
It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with our tax/financial system. We verify our investment portfolio/income sources every year, so the periodicity makes sense.Nor does the average person do so in relation to employment - signing an employment contract once, or the official secrets act once, is plenty good enough.
Seems your govt trusts you less.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It's fucking disgusting.Dilbert_X wrote:
Negotiating the murder of 24 civilians down to dereliction of duty is good going.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
I get your sarcasm, ofc
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Once again, most of us sign a document once, for moral obligations we don't sign anything.
Moral obligations don't seem to apply where you are.
Moral obligations don't seem to apply where you are.
Fuck Israel
Do you understand the concept of "verification"?Dilbert_X wrote:
Once again, most of us sign a document once, for moral obligations we don't sign anything.
Moral obligations don't seem to apply where you are.
Of course moral obligations apply. A piece of paper doesn't institute moral obligations. By filling out the disclosure forms, you are certifying that you have met all regulatory requirements, to the best of your knowledge. It's the case of a few bad apples spoil the barrel. Because of a few miscreants, the rest of us have to fill out paperwork that says "I was a good boy this year...again." You have it so completely ass backwards.
Once again: You. Just. Don't. Get. It.
You either get it and are just arguing to argue, or you do not get it and are seemingly incapable of getting it. Either way, you should probably just move on before you further embarrass yourself.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No, I think you're missing the point.
Fuck Israel
They save the detentions for civilians or whistleblowers now.Dilbert_X wrote:
Haditha thread was closed apparently http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3038105No jail time whatever?A US marine who admitted charges linked to the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005 should face no time in detention, a judge has recommended.
The decision by the judge at Camp Pendleton, California, must be approved by the commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command.
Sgt Frank Wuterich faced a maximum of three months after admitting dereliction of duty in a plea deal.
He was one of eight marines charged over the killings at Haditha.
The charges against six were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.
Military judge Lt Col David Jones said his hands had been tied by the terms of the plea agreement. However, he said he would recommend that Wuterich's rank be reduced to private.
Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.
His former squad members testified during the hearings that they were not fired upon nor did they find any weapons at the scene of the killings.
Wuterich told the court that he ordered his men to "shoot first, ask questions later" so they would not hesitate in attacking the enemy, but he never intended to harm any civilians.
Crikey
--Fidel Castro“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
Well, he hasn't gone senile yet it seems.
Not at all. You're focused on a single method of employment and assuming that's the only way things are.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, I think you're missing the point.
What if you were a consultant? Or you worked on a contract basis? Or, even better, with others who worked on a contract basis, but from other companies?
You would be signing "coercive" forms to make your "morally bankrupt" self do the right thing. Only that's not what they're for. They are so that, should you (or any of your co-workers who have to work under the same constraints) violate the policy, the company has legal recourse against you. It's not the paper that makes you do the right thing. The company does not assume that you will do wrong--they hope fervently that you will do the right thing in all things. It's too expensive to deal with the alternative.
Now go back to my situation: I deal with hundreds of products every year. Some are government-produced, but most are commercially-produced. I am in a position to know--well beforehand--whether a given product will be adopted by one of the largest IT users in the world, based on the results of the testing my organization does. Were I to hold their stock, the appearance of impropriety would be great. Were I to buy their stock--wittingly or unwittingly--immediately prior to the release of our test report and the subsequent wide-spread fielding of their product...it smacks of insider trading. And there are laws against that. Financial people have to do the same disclosures, for the same reasons. The only people immune from the requirement are apparently Congress.
It's not a matter of assumption of guilt or wrongdoing or intent. It's a matter of having recourse if wrong is ever done. Just as with your NDA/NCA.
Too bad you can't understand the very simple distinction there.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
blame the prosecuting officer. a plea deal is a plea deal is a plea deal.Dilbert_X wrote:
Haditha thread was closed apparently http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3038105No jail time whatever?A US marine who admitted charges linked to the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005 should face no time in detention, a judge has recommended.
The decision by the judge at Camp Pendleton, California, must be approved by the commander of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command.
Sgt Frank Wuterich faced a maximum of three months after admitting dereliction of duty in a plea deal.
He was one of eight marines charged over the killings at Haditha.
The charges against six were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.
Military judge Lt Col David Jones said his hands had been tied by the terms of the plea agreement. However, he said he would recommend that Wuterich's rank be reduced to private.
Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.
His former squad members testified during the hearings that they were not fired upon nor did they find any weapons at the scene of the killings.
Wuterich told the court that he ordered his men to "shoot first, ask questions later" so they would not hesitate in attacking the enemy, but he never intended to harm any civilians.
Crikey
Tu Stultus Es
Too bad you can't understand that my point was about public servants not signing agreements but still being under moral obligations to behave in certain ways.FEOS wrote:
Not at all. You're focused on a single method of employment and assuming that's the only way things are.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, I think you're missing the point.
What if you were a consultant? Or you worked on a contract basis? Or, even better, with others who worked on a contract basis, but from other companies?
You would be signing "coercive" forms to make your "morally bankrupt" self do the right thing. Only that's not what they're for. They are so that, should you (or any of your co-workers who have to work under the same constraints) violate the policy, the company has legal recourse against you. It's not the paper that makes you do the right thing. The company does not assume that you will do wrong--they hope fervently that you will do the right thing in all things. It's too expensive to deal with the alternative.
Now go back to my situation: I deal with hundreds of products every year. Some are government-produced, but most are commercially-produced. I am in a position to know--well beforehand--whether a given product will be adopted by one of the largest IT users in the world, based on the results of the testing my organization does. Were I to hold their stock, the appearance of impropriety would be great. Were I to buy their stock--wittingly or unwittingly--immediately prior to the release of our test report and the subsequent wide-spread fielding of their product...it smacks of insider trading. And there are laws against that. Financial people have to do the same disclosures, for the same reasons. The only people immune from the requirement are apparently Congress.
It's not a matter of assumption of guilt or wrongdoing or intent. It's a matter of having recourse if wrong is ever done. Just as with your NDA/NCA.
Too bad you can't understand the very simple distinction there.
Fuck Israel
I blame the whole military justice system TBH.eleven bravo wrote:
blame the prosecuting officer. a plea deal is a plea deal is a plea deal.
Fuck Israel
military justice system is pretty fucked up.
Tu Stultus Es
Of course I understand that point. You're the one who made it personal, saying I am morally bankrupt and can't behave in the proper way without a piece of paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hence the comparison to the private business world, where very similar--if not identical--requirements are made of employees. Yet you don't feel the need to dub them as "morally bankrupt" or accuse them of having a penchant to "behave in an improper way."Dilbert_X wrote:
Too bad you can't understand that my point was about public servants not signing agreements but still being under moral obligations to behave in certain ways.FEOS wrote:
Not at all. You're focused on a single method of employment and assuming that's the only way things are.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, I think you're missing the point.
What if you were a consultant? Or you worked on a contract basis? Or, even better, with others who worked on a contract basis, but from other companies?
You would be signing "coercive" forms to make your "morally bankrupt" self do the right thing. Only that's not what they're for. They are so that, should you (or any of your co-workers who have to work under the same constraints) violate the policy, the company has legal recourse against you. It's not the paper that makes you do the right thing. The company does not assume that you will do wrong--they hope fervently that you will do the right thing in all things. It's too expensive to deal with the alternative.
Now go back to my situation: I deal with hundreds of products every year. Some are government-produced, but most are commercially-produced. I am in a position to know--well beforehand--whether a given product will be adopted by one of the largest IT users in the world, based on the results of the testing my organization does. Were I to hold their stock, the appearance of impropriety would be great. Were I to buy their stock--wittingly or unwittingly--immediately prior to the release of our test report and the subsequent wide-spread fielding of their product...it smacks of insider trading. And there are laws against that. Financial people have to do the same disclosures, for the same reasons. The only people immune from the requirement are apparently Congress.
It's not a matter of assumption of guilt or wrongdoing or intent. It's a matter of having recourse if wrong is ever done. Just as with your NDA/NCA.
Too bad you can't understand the very simple distinction there.
Public servants are held to a higher standard, true. Maybe that's why there are such stringent rules governing their workplace.
Wow. That math was remarkably easy. Yet you can't seem to do it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Problem is the prosecuting officer, is an officer.Dilbert_X wrote:
I blame the whole military justice system TBH.eleven bravo wrote:
blame the prosecuting officer. a plea deal is a plea deal is a plea deal.
You aren't going to have justice when the prosecution is part of the system they are investigating. Hence friend benefits plea deals and lost paperwork. Case dismissed.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-01-25 19:52:54)
actually not all true. JAG corp is responsible for both parties. A prosecutor has the same chain of command (which separate from the line units) as the defense. some prosecutors would push for a dismissal more than the defense would.AussieReaper wrote:
Problem is the prosecuting officer, is an officer.Dilbert_X wrote:
I blame the whole military justice system TBH.eleven bravo wrote:
blame the prosecuting officer. a plea deal is a plea deal is a plea deal.
You aren't going to have justice when the prosecution is part of the system they are investigating. Hence friend benefits plea deals and lost paperwork. Case dismissed.
Tu Stultus Es
although a defendant in a courts martial has the option to seek civilian counsel
Tu Stultus Es