oath keepers

[tombogan03884]

He won't win. US troops have never had "the right to exclusively serve the US.  The US first Division origanaly served under a French General and Later the US forces served under Marshal Foch who was the overall front commander. US troops serving during the Korean war were serving under UN command, The fact that the UN Commander in that theater was an American was merely because we were the only ones with a General in the vicinity. US troops Also served under UN command in the Sinai peace keeping force. All this coupled with the Constitutional quote in my last post says this guy is wasting time and money


[/quott Thats a bunch of crap, My unit the 2nd cavalry fought exclusivly under the president in a war against the Seminole Indians. you ned to get your facts straight Tom

You need to post when you are sober or stay on your meds.
ALL military service is "exclusively  under the command of the President. DUH, It's why he is called the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
What does one of the "Indian Wars" have to do with serving under UN command ? Is the UN older that I thought it was ?

[2HOW]

You just cant throw out a blanket statement like "US troops have never had "the right to exclusively serve the US." How can you say that ? Thats not a correct statement. Until the U.N. came into existance they always exclusively served the U.S. as a matter of fact whatever entity they are attatched to (however illegal it is) they still serve the U.S.

As you know, President Clinton's order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay sponsored a bill to prohibit the wearing of a U.N. uniform by U.S. service personnel. This bill was a reaction to the case of U.S. Army soldier Michael New, who had refused to wear a U.N. uniform and was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct by Clinton. His lawyers continue to argue in the courts that his order to wear a U.N. uniform was in violation of his sacred oath, U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution

[fightingquaker13]

You just cant throw out a blanket statement like "US troops have never had "the right to exclusively serve the US." How can you say that ? Thats not a correct statement. Until the U.N. came into existance they always exclusively served the U.S. as a matter of fact whatever entity they are attatched to (however illegal it is) they still serve the U.S.

As you know, President Clinton's order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay sponsored a bill to prohibit the wearing of a U.N. uniform by U.S. service personnel. This bill was a reaction to the case of U.S. Army soldier Michael New, who had refused to wear a U.N. uniform and was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct by Clinton. His lawyers continue to argue in the courts that his order to wear a U.N. uniform was in violation of his sacred oath, U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution

First of all I wouldn't be taking legal advice from indicted felon Tom Delay. The man was a dollar chasing demagogue (no reflection on his ideology, just him being the kind of politician who will exploit any excuse to grandstand and raise money). He used the New case to rally the black helicopter set in east Tx., nothing more. The basic principle is that as CINC the pres does have the legal authority to secund our forces to an ally. You might review a military history of both world wars. Its not like Americans give orders and the Brits obey, it does happen the other way around as well. This is a decision that is well within the purview of the CINC. The UN (unless the anti-christ or Jane Fonda or Sean Hannity really is in charge) is nothing more than a treaty organization CREATED by the US. Yes they are a pain, thats kind of the point, better to argue in NY than fight in the Fulda gap. The fact is they they are necessary to deal with brush fire messes like Timor, Congo, Siani ,Somalia maybe Darfur before they they spread. The US can't just expect to always be in charge. There have been and will be times our guys take orders from a theatre commander who is Dutch, Angolan or what have you. So what? I really fail to see a problem, because the only way we getto  make all the decsions is if we act alone. Thats the way empires fall. Its called Imperial Overeach, cf. your nighly news,. It means that we absorb all the cost, bleeding ourselves dry, while uniting the world against us out fear. Simple balance of power. We have a vested interest in supportingt he status quo. That takes blood and treasure. We either share the cost AND some of the command or we burn ourselves out. Take your pick. Our guys will serve under forein ltheatre commanders from time to time and thats a good thing. Because the alternative is that they'll be fighing alone.
fightingquaker13

[twyacht]

Because the alternative is that they'll be fighting alone.


Except for a few Allies, that either have withdrawn already, or are about to, The U.S. usually does.The United Nations are IMPOTENT. They only self-serve their own interests, Darfur has nothing to offer the world in industry or resources, so has the UN done anything substantial to stop the genocide?

Have they "dic***" around with Iran/ North Korea,  long enough? How did that work? Please Mahmoud Abudinajad (sp), please stop, Pretty Please, You better stop Kim Dong ILL, you better really stop this time..... (Say it like your name is Lance from San Francisco), "Not that there is anything wrong with that",....

Oh, N. Korea is warning and clearing airspace for their next missle launch, right now,...

If I were a United States Soldier, I would have a hard time with the UN.

How many UN Resolutions did Saddam have to violate (17) before the UN still did NOTHING!.

They are a pathetic joke, should be kicked out of New York, and sent to Hugo Chavez's neighborhood, perhaps, Iran.

NATO is following the same suit.  The UN has a Global Society World View, Pacifist, Disarmed, and Dependent. I say they (UN)
can Piss Off...

Obama is a UN supporter, and a poll watcher, God help us if there is another 9/11 attack. I'm sure the UN will give BHO the proper advice....

Rant Off as well.

P.S. The Supreme Allied Commander in WWII was an American, and later, a President.

[tombogan03884]

You just cant throw out a blanket statement like "US troops have never had "the right to exclusively serve the US." How can you say that ? Thats not a correct statement. Until the U.N. came into existance they always exclusively served the U.S. as a matter of fact whatever entity they are attatched to (however illegal it is) they still serve the U.S.

As you know, President Clinton's order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay sponsored a bill to prohibit the wearing of a U.N. uniform by U.S. service personnel. This bill was a reaction to the case of U.S. Army soldier Michael New, who had refused to wear a U.N. uniform and was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct by Clinton. His lawyers continue to argue in the courts that his order to wear a U.N. uniform was in violation of his sacred oath, U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution

What about about the Marines who served as Gendarmerie in Haiti, Nicaragagua, and other Central American countries during the 20's and 30's they were serving as POLICE.
What about Korea, MacArthur was UN Commander.
What about The Black troops in WWI who served in FRENCH Divisions.
Why don't you learn the subject before you go telling others they are full of crap.

[Sponsor]

[Thanos]

you better really stop this time..... (Say it like your name is Lance from San Francisco), "Not that there is anything wrong with that",....

Okay, that WAS FUNNY!

They are a pathetic joke, should be kicked out of New York, and sent to Hugo Chavez's neighborhood, perhaps, Iran.

No, let them stay in NYC, charge them rent and then quit paying our dues...UN gone.

Oh, and soemone shows up to my house in a UN uniform with anything other than a warm hello, I will shoot them in the face and kill all their friends...they would be an invading army that I am sworn to fight just as much as any redcoat in Lexington or Concord. I don't like to say things like this on the webboard, but if Russians did it, Chinese, Mexicans, Canadians, British, French (Oh, wait not French )or anyone else that is not in a US uniform or US law enforcement, I will shoot them if they try to take anything of mine.

[long762range]

Okay, that WAS FUNNY!


No, let them stay in NYC, charge them rent and then quit paying our dues...UN gone.

Oh, and soemone shows up to my house in a UN uniform with anything other than a warm hello, I will shoot them in the face and kill all their friends...they would be an invading army that I am sworn to fight just as much as any redcoat in Lexington or Concord. I don't like to say things like this on the webboard, but if Russians did it, Chinese, Mexicans, Canadians, British, French (Oh, wait not French )or anyone else that is not in a US uniform or US law enforcement, I will shoot them if they try to take anything of mine.

Careful partner.  You are crossing some dangerous lines.

[tombogan03884]

Okay, that WAS FUNNY!


No, let them stay in NYC, charge them rent and then quit paying our dues...UN gone.

Oh, and soemone shows up to my house in a UN uniform with anything other than a warm hello, I will shoot them in the face and kill all their friends...they would be an invading army that I am sworn to fight just as much as any redcoat in Lexington or Concord. I don't like to say things like this on the webboard, but if Russians did it, Chinese, Mexicans, Canadians, British, French (Oh, wait not French )or anyone else that is not in a US uniform or US law enforcement, I will shoot them if they try to take anything of mine.

What the hell is a "UN uniform" ?
Who do you think would be wearing it ?
Are you actually paranoid enough to think the Ukrainians, Fijians, Dutch, and Pakistanis, (they get a lot of money for supplying manpower for UN peace keeping missions) Are going to be invading from bases in Canada and Mexico ?

[VinBea]

What the hell is a "UN uniform" ?
Who do you think would be wearing it ?
Are you actually paranoid enough to think the Ukrainians, Fijians, Dutch, and Pakistanis, (they get a lot of money for supplying manpower for UN peace keeping missions) Are going to be invading from bases in Canada and Mexico ?

You've got a lot to learn...or should I say: unlearn?

[VinBea]

Careful partner.  You are crossing some dangerous lines.

Looks like the only one who's crossing a line, my guess, would be you...