if you are told lies to sign a contract, how is it valid??

Options
1246

Comments

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    know1 wrote:
    But HOW can they contend that it's illegal if it's not?

    This is why we have courts, is it not? There is a lot of compelling evidence to support that the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is illegal. First, it was sold on a false bill of goods... that's just the tip of the iceberg.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    gue_barium wrote:
    This is why we have courts, is it not? There is a lot of compelling evidence to support that the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is illegal. First, it was sold on a false bill of goods... that's just the tip of the iceberg.


    Then shouldnt they go to court? Or are they going to court?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    dg1979us wrote:
    You dont have to accept the reasoning, but it is what it is, and you know that going in. Obviously we all want the government to be responsible with our troops, especially since they volunteered to do what many of us wouldnt. But at some point in this, there is some personal responsibility on the troops for fulfilling their committments. You know there is a possibility of going to war when signing up, and in this day you know its almost a certainty.

    it's not about soldiers not wanting to go to war ... it's about soldiers not wanting to go to THIS war ...

    again - many aspects of contracts are negotiated in good faith ... this war in iraq was not an act of good faith towards the soldiers nor the public ... if anyone has a right to break that contract - i say the soldiers do ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    decides2dream wrote:
    i think they do......whether that is *right* or not, i am not even attempting to discuss. i am focusing on the issue of their contracts, and the initial premise of the thread, the verbal discussion before signing, etc. and i would fully agree, i cannot imagine any other contract that would state such....but i do believe the military contract does in fact state such...so yea....i DO believe, one knows of this beforehand, at the very least should know what they are signing....and yes, it is NOT something i would ever volunteer to do. so legally, they are made aware of this beforehand, sign a contract saying they agree to such...so that's that. now you want to argue if it's RIGHT for such a clause to BE in that contract, another conversation entirely....

    i don't really care what is written in the contract ... but if my choices are to shoot innocent people or goto jail - something is wrong ...
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    dg1979us wrote:
    But who has declared it illegal? I respect their opinion, and really dont disagree, but individual soldiers dont get to decide what military operations are and arent illegal.

    Who gets to decide?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    dg1979us wrote:
    But who has declared it illegal? I respect their opinion, and really dont disagree, but individual soldiers dont get to decide what military operations are and arent illegal.

    Well, section 9.1 of the contract seems to say different:


    (1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties.

    "Lawful" is the key word there.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    polaris wrote:
    it's not about soldiers not wanting to go to war ... it's about soldiers not wanting to go to THIS war ...

    again - many aspects of contracts are negotiated in good faith ... this war in iraq was not an act of good faith towards the soldiers nor the public ... if anyone has a right to break that contract - i say the soldiers do ...


    Then they need to take this to court. Again, speaking in generalities, because I agree that the Iraq war is bullshit and needs to end. But speaking in general, it would be impossible for our military to ever be able to go to war not knowing how many troops would committ to the war. And if we left it up to the troops on an individual basis, then there is no way you could determine just how many troops you have for use.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    gue_barium wrote:
    Well, section 9.1 of the contract seems to say different:


    (1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties.

    "Lawful" is the key word there.


    I understand that. But who has declared Iraq illegal? Just because they "think" it is illegal doesnt make it so (though I agree with them). They need to go to court and prove that.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Who gets to decide?


    Courts. If the war is illegal they should sue so they can legally avoid going.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    polaris wrote:
    i don't really care what is written in the contract ... but if my choices are to shoot innocent people or goto jail - something is wrong ...


    your choice is to not volunarily sign up in the first place.
    and i am not going to assume what soldiers are *made* to do......but first and foremost, for this discussion anyway...to me it's what you are given, your CHOICE to vountarily sign up or not......and agreed to said terms.....that's the legality of the contract, anything else imo is another discussion.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    dg1979us wrote:
    Then they need to take this to court. Again, speaking in generalities, because I agree that the Iraq war is bullshit and needs to end. But speaking in general, it would be impossible for our military to ever be able to go to war not knowing how many troops would committ to the war. And if we left it up to the troops on an individual basis, then there is no way you could determine just how many troops you have for use.

    if the war is just - you won't have a problem ...
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    dg1979us wrote:
    Then they need to take this to court. Again, speaking in generalities, because I agree that the Iraq war is bullshit and needs to end. But speaking in general, it would be impossible for our military to ever be able to go to war not knowing how many troops would committ to the war. And if we left it up to the troops on an individual basis, then there is no way you could determine just how many troops you have for use.

    It isn't left up to them on an indiviual basis. It comes down the chain of command - the President at the top of the heap - and it will always be that way.
    Besides, I think you can see that the guys who really want to fight, do fight, regardless. And those that go AWOL, go AWOL. It is the rare one, like Lt. Watada who takes the fight to where it belongs when the chain of command has failed.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    polaris wrote:
    if the war is just - you won't have a problem ...

    How do you know this? We have never fought a war where troops were more or less left with an option to go fight or not.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    gue_barium wrote:
    It isn't left up to them on an indiviual basis. It comes down the chain of command - the President at the top of the heap - and it will always be that way.
    Besides, I think you can see that the guys who really want to fight, do fight, regardless. And those that go AWOL, go AWOL. It is the rare one, like Lt. Watada who takes the fight to where it belongs when the chain of command has failed.

    But if you are leaving it up to individual soldiers to decide if the war is legal or not, then it really is left up to them on an individual basis.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    dg1979us wrote:
    How do you know this? We have never fought a war where troops were more or less left with an option to go fight or not.

    how many people signed up for the army right after 9-11?? ... i'm guessing the numbers were above what they were prior to that day and i would say they haven't dropped below that day since ... despite the number who want out ...
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    dg1979us wrote:
    I understand that. But who has declared Iraq illegal? Just because they "think" it is illegal doesnt make it so (though I agree with them). They need to go to court and prove that.

    I think one Federal judge ruling could turn this whole thing topsy-turvy.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    gue_barium wrote:
    I think one Federal judge ruling could turn this whole thing topsy-turvy.

    I dont disagree, but until that ruling comes, then the soldiers, from a professional standpoint at least, have to look at the war as being legal.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    polaris wrote:
    how many people signed up for the army right after 9-11?? ... i'm guessing the numbers were above what they were prior to that day and i would say they haven't dropped below that day since ... despite the number who want out ...

    But it is still just a guess. Im not saying you wouldnt be right. But what happens when a true war of necessity comes along and we have several thousand soldiers decide it is illegal and not fight?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    dg1979us wrote:
    I dont disagree, but until that ruling comes, then the soldiers from a professional standpoint have to look at the war as being legal.

    Of course.

    Then again, there is the case of Lt. Watada, and others.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060623015345.itst2a0w&show_article=1
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    gue_barium wrote:
    Of course.

    Then again, there is the case of Lt. Watada, and others.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060623015345.itst2a0w&show_article=1


    ANd thats fine, I certainly respect him acting on his beliefs. But, that still doesnt prove the war is illegal, which is basically the cruxt to all of this.

    And maybe I shouldnt have used the phrase "have to" look at it as being legal, but instead the word "should".

Categories