Delusional paranoids render forum useless

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The ravings of some GIs about the war in Kosovo (among other OT item) has made this forum almost completely useless. Thanks for the fish!

-- Longtime (lurker@here.nomore), April 16, 1999

Answers

And yet they try to make the trolls their scapegoats.

-- Not ALL (confused@WhatEye.Read), April 16, 1999.

This post is off topic.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 16, 1999.

Useless? Maybe, but some of the off topic stuff is fascinating & entertaining to read. I particularly liked the IRS discussions, & speculations about Russia, WWIII, & martial law. What the average person will be asking about nine months from now, is already being hashed out here.

Anyway, how much info on y2k is really useful anyway, even the if it's accurate?

-- enjoys (off@topic.talk), April 16, 1999.


Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), April 16, 1999.

aNDy!!!!!! DIeteR FEeLs yOUr paIN, Does hE NOt?????? NIEN!!!!!

2000EOD?????? 2000EOD?????? doES THis sTANd FOr "2000 ENdlESS obTUSe delUSIONs?????

inSErt yOUr tONguE IntO THe empTY LigHtsocKEt!!!!!! FLicK THe swiTCh!!!!!! Ahhhhh, ReliEf!!!!! JAckAL!!!!!

i haTe yOu!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), April 16, 1999.



Now you've pissed me off slimfast as I gave you top honours in the poll yesterday.

Hyena.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 16, 1999.


I feel that everything on this board is relivent to y2k!! The issues being discussed are what might happen!! Just because you are blind doesn't mean that these things don't exist!!!!! Remember that!!! Dieter, you too!!!

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), April 16, 1999.

anDY!!!!! DIeteR Has upSET YoU??????? GOoD!!!!! aLL Is wELL WHen diETER is dESPIseD, Is iT NOt?????? TOo maNY IDiotS HErE WErE LIkiNG DIetER, DIetER Had loST hIs EDgE!!!!!! ENouGH You buZZardS!!!! ENouGH i SAy!!!!!! DIetER CAreS Not wHAT OthERS THinK OF Him UntiL POstERS Get weEPY TearY EyED!!!!! TheN SUcH FOoLishNEss muST BE expOSED!!!!!!

alSO Mr. mAN!!!!! RELeVanT is NOT thE SamE AS ON ToPIC!!!!! IDioT!!!! maYBe thE ameRICaN LanguAGE is TOo diFFicuLt fOR YoU!!!!! iS THat sO?????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), April 16, 1999.


longtime, if you don't want to read the posts, you don't have to. i read a small fraction of what's available. just ignore what you don't need or want, and stop whining.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), April 16, 1999.

the april 15 issue of sanger's review at http://www.sangersreview.com confirms what some people on this forum already suspected. there is an article there that says the war in kosovo is impeding the defense department's y2k repairs. that makes the war very relevant, IMHO.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), April 16, 1999.


IMHO, the pessimists can't find any truly bad news about Y2K so they bring in unrelated stories and try to make a connection with Y2K. The "war's" resources are not the same as the resources working on Y2K; one has nothing to do with the other. Oh I forgot, Y2K is pervasive and systemic, always an interesting piece of the puzzle.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

That the Kosovo crisis impedes the government's ability to remediate its systems is a valid factor and not in dispute. But, see? It takes less than two lines to write it. I figured out, all by my little self, that the Kosovo crisis may also be causing/will cause a problem in the supply of MREs and other dried foods for Y2K storage. However, thousands of lines of conspiracy theories and political rantings are turning people off and giving the Y2K scoffers rich fodder for what nuts we all are.

Don't tell me people need to know this stuff--they can see Kosovo any time they turn on the TV; they KNOW it's happening. It's not necessary to reproduce miles of lines of articles from fringe sites--just do a link. People will go there if they want to.

If you MUST keep going on about Kosovo, what about trying to figure out what items may be in short supply due to military usage?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), April 16, 1999.


Body bags?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

Maria: "Oh I forgot, Y2K is pervasive and systemic, always an interesting piece of the puzzle." Yes, exactly. Good you remembered .... you're getting very testy, you know.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Generators, radios, comm and command and control centers, emergeny (Air National Guard) air traffic control centers, trucks, Hummers, water tanks, fuel trailers, portable fuel depots, field hospitals, field gas stations, troops, helicopters, light aircraft, tents, field and survival equipment, rations (yecchhh, but they're food) for the troops, rations for civilians - (what the Kosovars are eating now the people in NYC can't use next year - if they actually need it ) - extra budget monies, ...., my tax dollars.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 16, 1999.


Maria and Longtime, For the umpteenth time Russia's 'use it or lose it' policy is directly related to y2k non-compliance. When communist and moslem inspired terrorists nuke our power plants and poison our water supply the last thing you will be worried about are pessimists.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), April 16, 1999.

Thanks BigDog, I needed a chuckle.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

The military personnel, the reserves. They should be back here to keep the semblance of order come late Fall. Insane to have our troops anywhere but on USA soil on/before/during/after rollover. There will be plenty of humanitarian missions to keep them busy here.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 16, 1999.


Let's see.

They just announced that Reservists will be called up for Kosovo next week.

IF we are still in this thing at the end of the year, do you think that will impact the State's ability to call for the National Guard, et. al. as Y2K back-up?

Many state's have already indicated this strategy is part of their contingency plans.

I see "relevance." Especialy in caring for unexpected refugees and related relief problems.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 16, 1999.


Leska, high 5! I totally agree!

Our government is clueless.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 16, 1999.


You're right on, Mike, and Diane! Our government is ether making this mistake because of stupidity, greed or because of corruption. Wanna bet on which one it is?? (I'd say all three!!!!!) :(

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), April 16, 1999.

Cities need to store extra food

link

I feel good

link

-- rb (phxbanks@webtv.net), April 16, 1999.


link

-- onceagain (x@X.com), April 16, 1999.

Leska and Diane: Good point -- if military and their supplies are in Kosovo, it will be much more difficult to establish martial law here with not as well trained and armed reservists/national guardists.

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 16, 1999.

Some Y2K worries on last Cold War front

-- (trend@watcher.now), April 16, 1999.

Leska, A, others,

You are right about the relevancy of Kosovo. Have no doubt that military intelligence is acting domestically to stifle opposition to the invasion of Kosovo, and the control of the flow of information on the internet is of such a concern to them that it borders on obsession. There's a lot of people saying "sit down and shut up about Kosovo" out there in WWW-land...

So far I see two strong reasons why Kosovo is relevant:

1. Use of reservists (and when they are gone, a draft of citizens) will hinder the ability of the Federal Government to control Y2k disruption or economic/political disintigration.

2. As Old Git implied, when world war breaks out, it can cause shortages. Buy now and save.

I would add a third reason why Kosovo is relevant:

3. If NATO would violate it's own charter by invading a sovereign state (when its mission is purely defensive), and NATO is essentially a vehicle of American Federal policy, then might not our Federal government see vit to violate it's own US Constitution by instituting any and all manner of "emergency" controls in the wake of a Y2k related disaster, and enforcing them vigorously? Follow up questions: Has the US Constitution, as the "supreme law of the land" been strengthened or weakened by our Federal Government in recent decades? Have our individual rights and freedoms been strengthened, or undermined? Has the Federal Government, on whatever pretext, displayed a greater willingness, or a greater reluctance, to invade the privacy of, and use deadly force on, it's own citizens?

If you think these considerations are fanciful or irrelevant, feel free to click to Old Git's excellent post on how to grow trouble-free (indian) wild potatoes. But please don't whine about it - even if you're being paid to.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 16, 1999.


Now don't any of you worry your sweet little heads about not having enough of our own troops here to protect us during martial law...why, we have tons of foreign troops here, just waiting for the opportunity to love and protect us from ourselves...remember too, the U.N. has authority over our troops in the case of a national emergency or war...

don't worry...be happy!...have a nice day now...you hear?

Texas Terri

BTW...don't forget, the Chinese are just off the coast of Calif. in Long Beach...I'm sure they will protect us...won't they?...won't they?

-- Texas Terri (DeepInTheHeart@Texas.com), April 16, 1999.


"the U.N. has authority over our troops in the case of a national emergency or war... "

Complete and utter bullshit.

-- ... (.@...), April 16, 1999.


Oh, really, Mr. Smart @...remember the soldier that was court marshalled for refusing to remove his U.S. insignia and replace it with the U.N insignia?

Texas Terri

-- Texas Terri (DeepInTheHeart@Texas.com), April 16, 1999.


What about that guy who got courtmartialed for refusing to serve under a foreign, UN command?

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 16, 1999.


Jinx...you owe me a coke

Texas Terri

-- Texas Terri (DeepInTheHeart@Texas.com), April 16, 1999.


Dano, Terri,

He was court-martialed because he refused the order of his U.S. superior officer. The U.S. decided to assign some troops to the UN force.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.


"If NATO would violate it's own charter by invading a sovereign state (when its mission is purely defensive), and NATO is essentially a vehicle of American Federal policy, then might not our Federal government see vit to violate it's own US Constitution by instituting any and all manner of "emergency" controls in the wake of a Y2k related disaster, and enforcing them vigorously? Follow up questions: Has the US Constitution, as the "supreme law of the land" been strengthened or weakened by our Federal Government in recent decades? Have our individual rights and freedoms been strengthened, or undermined? Has the Federal Government, on whatever pretext, displayed a greater willingness, or a greater reluctance, to invade the privacy of, and use deadly force on, it's own citizens? "

AAAAAMMMEEEENNNN Dano!!!!!!! That was sooo good it had to be posted again.

You win the cupie doll!

The geopolitical scenes playing out now is the canvass Y2K will be painted on.

Oh and No Spam........you're off topic.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 16, 1999.


On Drudge now:
United States braces for up to 230,000 Hurricane Mitch refugees...
But no link for it yet. I remember when we were discussing Mitch on this Forum and its relevance to Y2K -- storm, infrastructure down, looting, martial law, garbage, disease, refugees, etc.

These disasters are dramatic, and their aftereffects are long-drawn-out misery, years and years and years of displacement.

I am very patriotic (although ignorant about most .gov and all .mil subjects), and I'm also love-all-brother&sisters-from-all-over-the-globe, BUT I feel it is monstrously wrong to have foreign troops on US streets with their guns primed for US citizens!

If I, such a weeny marshmellow, feel this way, imagine how many will erupt in rage if our sons, brothers, nephews, fathers, are stuck in system-down quagmires in overseas hostile territory when Y2K strikes, while USA cityzzzzn weeples are herded by (rightly) resentful revengeful stranger occupying soldiers.

What a recipe for absolute internal war! That would be .gov .mil suicide. That would be idiocy on an incomprehensible level. I think if there are prolonged power outages and civil unrest and terrorist attacks, weeples will give in to martial law. But NOTHING will make even the soft dull spineless directionless weeples accept foreign troops over them while "our boys" die at the hands of 'primitive' bands better savagely equipped to fight techless. If there is any possibility of this emerging, I expect to see people start to wake up and demand changes around the middle of September.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx x

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 16, 1999.


-- No Spam Please,

You only WISH you had the GUTS that soldier had.

Of course LIBERAL, BOOT LICKING, LEFT WING SOCIALISTS expect others to carry out the military duties of their country.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 16, 1999.


Has anyone considered that it might be a pretext to get any organized and competent opposition to the civil police forces out of the country?

Was Hitler's opposition within the populace dealt with by the military or the "police"?

How many of you truly believe that those American pilots that are obeying orders to bomb Yugoslavia would obey them if their target was, "a Y2K 'wacko' compound of rebel forces" just outside Pittsburgh or, "a refinery supplying an opposition militia with gasoline" in the SF Bay area?

How many of you truly believe that the BATF or the FBI or the NYPD or the LAPD would obey orders to arrest and imprison large groups of people? How about just flat line them up and shoot them in the back of the head?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 16, 1999.


Hardliner, your posts usually make me feel better, and I hope this whole thing is impossible. History shows the police forces become more brutal and corrupt than home-grown military forces. When the two get together, it gets even worse.

I will be very very nervous if, by November, all our troops are not back home. Americans' well-being must come first and foremost. If our troops are still overseas, I will feel our government is beyond stooopid and is evil.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 16, 1999.


Believe me, I always take Hardliner seriously on these matters, but it is also possible that (remember Yourdon's thread a while back?) what we're seeing is a decision to get as many troops stationed "over there" as possible before Y2K so they can be reasonably easily redeployed wherever (Middle East to protect oil?) rather than shipped 3K miles DURING Y2K problems.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Why not both, BigDog? Military mail and information about what is going on "back home" is censored, so it's not beyond reason that the military could be used as you suggest while the "adjustments" were being carried out in the USA by the civil cops. . .(now there's a play on words for ya')

Wasn't there an incident somewhere in history where the ruler sent the military off to war (and some hurculean task) so that he could work his schemes at home without fear of their interference?

I'd be very interested in Dano's perspective on these ideas.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), April 16, 1999.


Alas. Indeed.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Hardliner, please look over the thread linked below and say what you think:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000j8A

Thanks -- there's some military-related points there that need your expertise.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 16, 1999.


INVAR,

>Oh and No Spam........you're off topic.

Thank you for acknowledging that the posting to which I responded was off-topic. Now you can't claim ignorance about that anymore.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.


>How many of you truly believe that the BATF or the FBI or the NYPD or the LAPD would obey orders to arrest and imprison large groups of people? How about just flat line them up and shoot them in the back of the head?

Yes indeed, all that and a bag of chips. If the environment is scary and brutal, people will perform and accept scary and brutal actions. This sentiment, that "they are all honorable men" is first an appeal to our trust, and their better natures; then it becomes a forlorn hope; then finally mere whitewash. We are about to find out, by provoking the current conflict, that we are not physically invulnerable; and we should remember that we are not morally incorruptable either.

A lot of people would resist, but the control circuit knows who they are. Information age tagging... The Nazis did it with shoeboxes and filecards; Stalin was an inkstained clerk, etc.. Things are a little more sophisticated now. The extent of domestic spying on citizens would make the average person throw up, literally, if they knew about it. They aren't looking for "drugs."

This is what's been planned. But I honestly don't know if Y2k is making them rush it forward or not.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 16, 1999.


(quote) "Of course LIBERAL, BOOT LICKING, LEFT WING SOCIALISTS expect others to carry out the military duties of their country." (close quote)

Oh for goodness' sake. How much name-calling can one person cram into a short post? It is THIS kind of dualistic baloney that leads to the so-called necessity for young men to be "sent off" to "war" by the paunchy ones in the seats of power.

--She, the small-"a"-anarchist, upon the hill.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 16, 1999.


Addendum: I hit the submit button too soon...

Any six-year old can call names, if of course their parents model it on a regular basis. "So's your old man,...Your mother wears army boots...etc., ad nauseum." Rise above cognitive developmental level, and post something other than invective. Ray, in past weeks you have not done this, or at least not in threads I've read. I'm surprised. Should I be?

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 16, 1999.


>>INVAR,

>Oh and No Spam........you're off topic.

Thank you for acknowledging that the posting to which I responded was off-topic. Now you can't claim ignorance about that anymore. - No Spam

No Spam, I posted that to prove what a hypocrite you are.

And you are a hypocrite. We shall consider your "On Topic" rantings null and void from now on.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 16, 1999.


Well Old Git, I can see they took your suggestion to heart.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), April 16, 1999.

Donna commented:

" Ray, in past weeks you have not done this, or at least not in threads I've read. I'm surprised. Should I be?"

Donna, rarely do I spout off like this but when a weasel like No Spam makes a false statement about one our military folks that had the GUTS to stand up and tell it like it was I won't hold back. Don't expect to se it often but expect to see when this kind of weasel pops it's head up.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 16, 1999.


But, but, but,..Ray,..you are still name-calling.(Weasel,I think was the word). Back off...take a breath, and realize that each person thinks differently than you do on any given subject. Lambasting someone will not get them to change...in fact it will probably have the exact opposite of the desired effect. They will dig in and oppose you more. Reminds me of the martial art Aiki Do,...the persons who practice take roles..."the push" and "the throw". To defend oneself you don't oppose the other but use his energy to make him ineffective. This is not what you are doing....Step back. Think about what the other is saying, and reply using the other's words. I don't buy the "I was pushed beyond my discipline" argument. That is laziness, ...which I might add, lest, I come off as holier than thou,......which, I am totally capable of...to name-call, and/or do violence is a decision....there is a point very early where you say "****-it" I'll just do him back." That is the place where you must stop and think,...and breathe.

I will recommend a book...a fiction by Aldous Huxley, Island. There is good discussion there on consciousness, confrontation, anger and breathing. Available cheap in used book stores...Be well.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 16, 1999.


Donna, thanks for the Reco.

Many Americans have given their lives so that we could bask in the current day liesures. Now we have a president who is a PROVEN draft dodger sending our demoralized and decimated military into an unauthorized war.

People like No Spam, IMHO who twist the circumstances of one soldiers fight to stand up for what we ALL should have been fighting for, are GUTLESS. If this is name calling so be it.

If the American people had been awake to what has been going on with our military maybe we would not be in the predicament we are today. But, unfortunately they continue in their comatose state and will suffer the consequences of their total inactions.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 16, 1999.


Americans giving their lives in war is not an excuse for you to call names. You don't have to like what the less-than-Ray's-patriotism have to say...you do have charge of how you respond. The ultimate in responsibility. React amoeba-like or respond as a thinking human being. It's up to you. Be well.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 16, 1999.

Amen Ray.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 16, 1999.

Donna commented:

"Americans giving their lives in war is not an excuse for you to call names."

Tell that to the parentss of the folks coming home from this war.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 16, 1999.


As a parent of an almost 27-year old, I could imagine angry words if he were killed in war. They would be for the government who sent him...beyond that I think my words would be words of sorrow,...words that would urge other people to think before they avocate armed conflict....I lost a 12-year old nephew, dear to me, to a car accident one year ago. I can't imagine that I would be name calling anyone...Sorry...I don't buy it...you can choose what words you use and get your point across without name-calling Ray...try it sometime. Tell yourself your emotions are okay but not valid input to discussion....

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 16, 1999.

We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way. Aldous Huxley, "Island"

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 16, 1999.

Donna commented:

"As a parent of an almost 27-year old, I could imagine angry words if he were killed in war. They would be for the government who sent him.."

Donna, "The Government" you talk about HAS a leader and your angry words would be directed at that leader like it or not.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 16, 1999.


Think of what the present administration has done, RE, selling/giving high tech to the Chinese, and attacking Serbia because they won't play ball with the NWO. Now imagine if this conflict develops into WWIII. Do you think the American People are going to be content with mere name-calling? Especially if there's a phoney-baloney "state of emergency" in which their power to vote is suspended (among other indignities)? Right now our economy is a bubble in the midst of ruins, running on refuge capital, ignorance and hope. When it pops, and there's a draft on to pour rivers American blood into an EU venture, "the 90s are going to make the 60s look like the 50s." Then comes Y2k.

Kosovo is "Pearl Harbor" - only for some reason we've decided to play the part of the Japanese this time. This punative expedition is going to blow up in our faces, extra-large. This is a non-trivial situation.

We're talking about ten pounds of megacorporate bullshit, treason and flagrant violation of the Constitution stuffed into a five pound Republic. And the seams are splitting. Soon we will look back on the days of mere "name calling" with fondness.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 16, 1999.


Yeah.....what HE said.

Thanks Dano for stating what needed to be said.

Been holding down the ideological fort all day, thanks for the relief.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 16, 1999.


INvAR!!!!! WheN DIetER HAS BeeN HOldiNG A fOrt aLL Day aND NEEds reLIEf, He LetS GO anD bLameS IT on ThE DoG!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), April 16, 1999.

Slimfast.

I hate you.

hyena!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 16, 1999.


---definition of a lurker on a bbs--someone who just reads, never adds anything to the discussion--and then they got the nerve to complain? Someones momma didn't do a very good job of raising lurker@nowheresville whoever started this thread. It's one thing to just be lazy, but to whine about folks who actually are trying to contribute something??? I understand some folks lurk because of security, or they might be intimidated by public writing, or any other legitimate-sorta-reason, but to uncloak just to bitch????? dunno about that............

-- zog (zog@avana.net), April 16, 1999.

Donna,

Thanks for at least trying to be one of the "keepers of civility."

Useful skill, in community. At least, the one's worth living in.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 16, 1999.


HEy ZOG!!!!! ArT thOu tHE ZOg OF GN's fORUM?????? iF YEa, wELComE AboaRD THe bOArd!!!!!! bewARE!!!!! BEWaRE I saY!!!!!! FOoLishNEss iS RAmpANt heRe!!!!!!! tHoU ART MOstLy HigH On proSE And lOW ON FOoLishneSS!!!! IF tHEe ARt nOT THou, ThoU SHanT BE tO THinE OwnsELF BEgoTTEn thUsLy INveRSE!!!!! HuH????? jA!!!!! whAT????? HyenA!!!!!

anDY!!!!! bE NoT Of spITEfuLNeSS To dieTER!!!!! cAN You nOT See tHAt yOUR INsanE RAntinGs oF SPam fREE ON topIC PostiNGs wERe nOT ON TOpiC?????? ReLevANt perHAPs!!!!!!HuH???? WHat???? ReLevAnt MAyhAPs, BUt nOt ON TOpIC!!!!!! JACkaL!!!!!

mE LovE You LonG TImE!!!!!

hyENa BuzZarD!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), April 16, 1999.


Ray,

>No Spam makes a false statement about one our military folks

What was false about it? Did he, or did he not, refuse the order of his U.S. superior officer?

>like No Spam, IMHO who twist the circumstances of one soldiers fight to stand up for what we ALL should have been fighting for, are GUTLESS.

What circumstance did I twist, Ray? Did he, or did he not, refuse the order of his U.S. superior officer?

>You only WISH you had the GUTS that soldier had.

Why do you direct your ire at me instead of at the officer who issued the order?

I didn't write that I thought the officer's order was correct. I didn't write that I thought what the soldier did was wrong.

Why do you attack me as though I did, Ray?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


INVAR,

>No Spam, I posted that to prove what a hypocrite you are.

Why do you call me a hypocrite? I don't claim that an off-topic posting was on-topic!

>We shall consider your "On Topic" rantings null and void from now on.

Uhmmm ... is this a _change_ in your point of view?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


No Spam commented:

"What was false about it? Did he, or did he not, refuse the order of his U.S. superior officer? "

No Spam, the soldier was UNDER UN COMMAND. His superior WAS UNDER UN COMMAND not a US MILITARY OFFICER.

Now to the crux of your post. You infered. as many do on this forum, that this soldier was under US command, he WAS NOT.

It is folks like you who will suffer the most when we FINALLY discover how badly the President has decimaten and demoralized our military.

Did you ever serve on active duty NO SPAM? If so how long?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 17, 1999.


Ray,

The article I read about the incident stated that first the soldier refused the order from his UN superior officer, then he refused when the order was repeated by his U.S. superior officer. The court-martial was by the U.S. Army.

(1) Was the article wrong?

(2) Was the court-martial by a U.S. military court or a UN military court?

(3) If the article on which I based my statement was wrong, how does my reliance on it for information make me "only WISH" I "had the GUTS that soldier had"?

(4) If the article on which I based my statement was wrong, how does my reliance on it for information make me "a weasel"?

(5) If the article on which I based my statement was wrong, how does my reliance on it for information make me "GUTLESS"?

>Did you ever serve on active duty NO SPAM?

No, because of medical conditions. My father, an uncle, and a great-uncle served in WW2. One of my cousins was ineligible because of medical conditions; another married a Navy Lt. Cmdr.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


Clarification about the soldier's having two superior officers: The incident occurred at the time of transferring the soldier from U.S. command to UN command, according to my understanding.

If I misunderstood, how does that make me "a weasel" or "GUTLESS", Ray?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


No Spam,

The soldier was under the UN COMMAND. Soldiers under UN COMMAND do not report to their UN superior officer and a US Superior officer.

I did not ask the question about your military service tto be cruel. I believe you would have a MUCH different attitude about this soldier if you had spent time on active duty. Our military has a PROUD HERITAGE. That heritage is under CONSTANT barrage by this Administration and they are disgusted by it's actions.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 17, 1999.


This is looking more like the No Spam and Ray Show.

-- Joe Six-Pack (Average@Joe.Blow), April 17, 1999.

Ray,

Wasn't the soldier at the point of transferring from U.S. to UN command, refused the order by the UN officer to put on UN insignia [which would have signified his acceptance of the transfer of command to the UN, and the UN officer as his superior officer], then refused the order when repeated by the U.S. officer who was still his superior officer if he did not accept the transfer to UN command? Perhaps technically either the UN officer was his about-to-be-superior-officer or the U.S. officer was his former superior officer at certain instants, but if he's being court-martialed by a U.S. military court, that indicates that he's being prosecuted for his refusal of the U.S. officer's order and that the U.S. military had jurisdiction over the incident, doesn't it?

And I do expect you to answer the 5 numbered questions I posed above, Ray.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


Sometimes govt in WashingtonDC does not look very capable! ;^}
Check out this article for a blech! good laugh; also fits many of our collective ponderings of post-Y2K devolution + plague scenarios:

Huge Hordes of Rats Infest DC

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 17, 1999.


No Spam,

Our military men DID NOT enlist to serve under another command. You may feel that our PROUD military forces can be assigned to others but that does not make it so.

The President of the United States is a proven DRAFT DODGER. He did not have the Guts to serve as others did during a crucial period in our history. He left that duty to others who in turn died so that he might go on. He has seen to it under his command that our military has seen 33 of these UN missions of futality where American soldiers have died for naught. He has also seen to it that this PROUD fighting force has been reduced to BEGGING for funds to keep their equipment running and training available. And now the ultimate injustice, sending them into combat demoralized and without proper training and equipment.

It is obvious that you share the same attitude for our fighting forces that this administration has. This is TRULY sad because in the end we will all pay the price.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 17, 1999.


Ray,

Are the details about the case that I wrote above accurate, or not?

Was the article correct, or not?

Was the soldier court-martialed by the U.S. military, or not?

Where are your answers to my questions?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


No Spam,

You've got my answers!!

How do you feel about what is happening to our military?

Answers Please.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 17, 1999.


Thanks for the link Leska, I was going to post it but decided not to so as not to push No Spam over the edge (if that were possible).

No Spam - you are making a complete and utter fool of yourself with your constant nit picking.

If it's not baiting me about what I can post or not according to YOUR rules, then you are baiting Ray over this UN court martial. As always you are so absorbed in your nit picking that you miss the point that Ray has had to dry to drum into you several times. US soldiers DO NOT TAKE KINDLY to taking orders from UN Officers. Is that too difficult to understand?

And then we have your nit picking about the IRS, the Fed, Executive Orders etc.

Get a grip spam, you're losing it and we have 8 months to go...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 17, 1999.


Can you imagine what DC will become by 1/3/2000, with the power off, the sewers backing up, the water off, the garbage uncollected? !!

"Rats carry as many as 35 diseases, including ratbite fever, salmonella food poisoning and leptospirosis, a flu-like illness. During the past 1,000 years, disease specialists say, the rapidly reproducing rodents have caused more deaths than all the wars and revolutions combined."

The Plague starts in Washington DC. Creepy, disgusting, a very real problem. How can any government be so incompetent and "dysfunctional"!?

Maybe we should start a new thread with this article.

Huge Hordes of Rats Infest DC

mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm m

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), April 17, 1999.


Okay, Andy and Dieter, put away your dart guns before one of you pokes an eye out. This forum has taught me to look for the "interconnectedness" of all things, and now I am able to discern just how far out of hand this disagreement between the two of you has gotten, to wit:

Cooler Full Of Cash (Last updated 8:23 AM ET April 16) MIAMI (Reuters) - Authorities rushed to a Miami-area hotel this week after a guest's cooler flipped open in the lobby and spilled $2 million in cold, hard cash.

U.S. Customs agents said they were called to the hotel in the suburb of Miami Springs after a guest passed through the lobby pulling a small luggage cart carrying a large cooler. The luggage cart suddenly broke, sending the cooler crashing to the floor. Its lid opened, and -- as shocked hotel workers watched plastic-wrapped bundles of $20 bills littered the ground.

The Associated Press W A S H I N G T O N, April 17 - A batch of ready-to-drink diet shakes are being recalled by Slim Fast Foods because some of the cans may be filled with a diluted cleaning solution.

About 192,000 cans of Ultra Slim Fast's creamy milk chocolate-flavored shakes are being pulled off the shelves, said Dr. Harry Greene, medical director of the West Palm Beach, Fla., company. The cans were sold individually. (Purchased with $20 bills, no doubt, eh, Andy? ;)---RUOK)

You are both in need of Rob Michaels' instructions on the proper use of duct tape; Andy for that little cooler popping open problem, and Dieter with that little holding down the fOrt problem.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), April 17, 1999.


Ray,

For the sake of gentlemanliness, here's an offer:

If you'll do something for me, I'll do something for you.


What you'll do for me:
---------------------

Before 21:00 GMT (= 17:00 EDT = 14:00 PDT) April 18, 1999 you post a message on this forum, in the "Delusional paranoids render forum useless" thread (or, in the unlikely case that the "Delusional paranoids render forum useless" thread is deleted by that time, in a new thread started by you), which contains the following:

1. Apology for each of the following items you posted in the "Delusional paranoids render forum useless":

(a) "You only WISH you had the GUTS that soldier had."

(b) "Of course LIBERAL, BOOT LICKING, LEFT WING SOCIALISTS expect others to carry out the military duties of their country." [You may, if you wish, note that this was not directly addressed to me, if in fact you did not intend it to be directed to me in your original posting.]

(c) & (d) "when a weasel like No Spam makes a false statement about one our military folks that had the GUTS to stand up and tell it like it was I won't hold back. Don't expect to se it often but expect to see when this kind of weasel pops it's head up." In this, there are two separate items: "weasel" and "false statement".

(e) & (f) "People like No Spam, IMHO who twist the circumstances of one soldiers fight to stand up for what we ALL should have been fighting for, are GUTLESS." In this, there are two separate items: "twist the circumstances" and "GUTLESS".

(g) "No Spam, the soldier was UNDER UN COMMAND. His superior WAS UNDER UN COMMAND not a US MILITARY OFFICER." For this item, the apology will mention a reason (e.g., failure to do research) for your having posted this false assertion.

(h) "You infered. as many do on this forum, that this soldier was under US command, he WAS NOT." For this item, the apology will be for the false assertion that the soldier was not under US command.

(i) "It is folks like you who will suffer the most when we FINALLY discover how badly the President has decimaten and demoralized our military." For this item, the apology will be for the "folks like you" phrase.

(j) "The soldier was under the UN COMMAND." For this item, the apology will mention a reason (e.g., failure to do research) for your having posted this false assertion.

(k) "I believe you would have a MUCH different attitude about this soldier if you had spent time on active duty." For this item, the apology will be for assuming that I had a certain attitude about the soldier which would be different if I had been on active duty.

[What attitude did you think I had, Ray? At the time you posted that, I had not expressed any attitude about the soldier -- I had just posted a factual correction about his case. Do you presume that posting a factual correction necessarily implies that there is a certain attitude you don't like?]

(l) "It is obvious that you share the same attitude for our fighting forces that this administration has."

[Why did you think that was obvious, Ray? What had I posted that would support such an opinion of yours?]

(m) "You've got my answers!!" As anyone reading the thread can see, you had not yet answered the questions I posed, Ray.

Such apology does not have to include a separate sentence for each of the items listed above, but it must refer to each of them specifically enough so that the reader clearly sees that there were thirteen separate items.

What I'll do for you:

1. Refrain from posting the full text of Michael New's own remarks at the Michael New homecoming rally at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Conroe, Texas on July 28, 1996, plus other confirming quotations, in any posting addressed to you. I won't post these at all unless I'm replying to someone else's later reference to the Michael New case.

2. Refrain from pointing out in detail how Michael New's own remarks and the other confirming quotations demonstrate that:

(a) your contention that I made "a false statement" was wrong,

(b) your contention that I did "twist the circumstances" was wrong,

(c) your contention that "the soldier was UNDER UN COMMAND" was wrong,

(d) your contention that "His superior WAS UNDER UN COMMAND not a US MILITARY OFFICER" was wrong, and

(e) your statement that "You infered. as many do on this forum, that this soldier was under US command, he WAS NOT" was wrong insofar as it states that the soldier was not under U.S. command, when in fact he was under U.S. command just as you stated that I and many others had inferred.

3. Post corrections of the details of my recollections about the Michael New case that were wrong.

4. Consider the matter of your insults about my posting of a factual correction about the Michael New case closed, unless you re-open it later.


As I write this, the time is not yet 22:00 GMT, April 17, so there are over 23 hours for you to agree to my offer.

If for some reason you wish to agree to my offer except that you cannot complete your posting of the items specified above under "What you'll do for me:" by 21:00 GMT, April 18, 1999, and you post a message stating that by 21:00 GMT, April 18, 1999, I'll agree to a reasonable extension of the timeframe, such as an extra 24 hours, for completing your posting of the above items.

If you post a rejection of this offer before 21:00 GMT, April 18, 1999, all of my constraints under this offer will immediately be voided and I will have no duty to refrain from posting Michael New's remarks or my comments relating them to your postings at any time.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


My God Leska, that Hoards of Rats article is one of the scariest things I've read. Can you imagine living in Washington if Y2K is serious? Rats carry plague from fleas! Yikes. I think you should post this where everyone sees it.

I live out in the country and have 9 wonderful cats. Two are too old to catch anything. But the other are good hunters. One of our small cats dragged in a rat that was so big she could barely carry it. Very interesting reading.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), April 17, 1999.


Hi Gilda :-) Yes, that article stayed on our mind, so we started a new thread on it:

Huge Hordes of Rats Infest DC

Come on over & share your cats!
Actually, we no longer have pets, but I've suffered flea bites around the shins all my life. Guess my blood is sweet & tasty ;^) They never bite Ashton! Do you know a non-toxic something to smear around the ankles to keep the fleas off? We've cared for enough Parkinson's patients to be extremely wary of pesticides of any kind. Thanks.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 17, 1999.


Ray,

I'm issuing a little challenge to you over on your I READ THE NEWS TODAY, OH BOY......... thread. Got the GUTS to take it? Or are you a "weasel"?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


Ray,

Oh, let me mention that you can get out of the challenge by agreeing to post the apology outlined above. That way, you won't have to read or respond to the challenge.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


Anybody-other-than-Ray,

It might be best for you NOT to read the challenge I'm issuing to Ray over on his thread. Just stay out of it, especially if you have a weak stomach like Ray's.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 17, 1999.


RUOK - what the hell are you blathering on about - I would NEVER use a cooler to transport money - a coffin maybe, nobody messes with a coffin!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 17, 1999.

Andy,

Once again you try to twist around what happened to make me look bad.

>you are baiting Ray over this UN court martial.

1. It is a US court martial, not a UN court martial. Get your facts straight.

2. I'm not baiting Ray. I posted a simple factual correction that wasn't addressed to Ray at all. Ray then posted several insults. I calmly asked him what was wrong with my factual correction. He continued to insult. All I want is his apology for the unfounded insults (his assertion that the soldier, Michael New, was under UN command is simply false, according to Michael New's own words posted on the Internet).

>you miss the point that Ray has had to dry to drum into you several times. US soldiers DO NOT TAKE KINDLY to taking orders from UN Officers. Is that too difficult to understand?

I won't ask you if it is too difficult to understand that Michael New WAS NOT TAKING ORDERS FROM UN OFFICERS. I'll let you look it up for yourself if you have the guts to read the man's _own words_. Five minutes on a good Internet search will find them for you. Less if you use the man's name as keyword.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 18, 1999.


Ray,

For inspiration, here are excerpts from Michael New's remarks.

(I figure this doesn't violate my part of the apology agreement posted earlier because of your response "Now here is my answer to your post requesting and apology. YOU ARE A WEASEL." While not a clear direct full rejection of the proposal, it seems reasonable to interpret that as a partial rejection, in which case it seems reasonable for me to post a small part of Michael New's own remarks.)

From Michael New's own remarks at the Michael New homecoming rally at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Conroe, Texas on July 28, 1996:

"1. I was standing against an unlawful order to deploy to Macedonia; 2. refusing the President's order to wear the UN uniform; 3. refusing to serve under a foreign UN commander; 4. and refusing to be required to carry only the UN identification card."

Note: "the President's order to wear the UN uniform". The President was and is _NOT_ a UN officer. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S., not UN, armed forces.

Also,

"However, on January 24, 1996, I was convicted of not obeying what the prosecution called a "lawful order" even though they admitted in open court in Germany that the uniform was not a regulation uniform. My defense was not allowed to put on the overwhelming evidence that the order was unlawful which pointed to presidential wrongdoing and the failure of Congressional oversight. The military judge basically said it was above his pay grade to rule on Presidential wrong doing and bucked it up to the next judiciary level."

Note the consistent reference to the _President_ (and it was the President of the _United States_, not the President of Germany or the UN or anyone else), who was and is NOT a UN officer.

At no place in his remarks does New refer to any refusal to obey an order of a UN officer.

So why aren't you willing to admit that a simple factual correction I posted was accurate, Ray? Why make it so complicated with all the insults?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 18, 1999.


Ray,

Below is the full text of Michael New's remarks at the Michael New homecoming rally at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Conroe, Texas on July 28, 1996, as published at http://www.infinet.com/~jaylor/newspch.html. Following that are excerpts from a book review and another article about the Michael New case.

Note that nowhere in his remarks does Michael New mention receiving any order from a UN officer. He refused the order to serve under UN command, so never had a UN superior. The orders he refused were from U.S. officers, and the court in which he was first tried was a U.S. military court in Germany, not a UN military court.

Though I recall reading an article which stated that Specialist New had refused an order issued by a UN officer, and wrote that in an earlier posting, I later found these remarks by Specialist New, indicating that _I was mistaken_ about there having been a UN officer involved, which I now freely admit.

I am not sure why you insult me for posting a couple of facts about the Michael New case. I think it is important to get the facts straight to avoid basing a conclusion on something that didn't happen. On a personal level: in 1993 and again in 1995 people with authority over me made important and damaging decisions about me without getting elementary facts straight about the respective cases. In each case, those people refused to change their decisions after I presented them with evidence contrary to their false assumptions. So I know that it can be hard to admit that one has made a mistake because of incorrect information.

Note that Specialist New did the research to get the facts straight in his case before he refused the orders.

- -

Michael New's Homecoming Speech

REMARKS OF MICHAEL G. NEW
MICHAEL NEW HOMECOMING RALLY
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURTHOUSE
CONROE, TEXAS
JULY 28, 1996

Standing is an important posture in life. People stand when the national anthem is played. When the flag passes, people stand and cover their hearts. On political issues people ask where do you stand, what is your position?

For generations, parents in America have taught us how to stand. They have shown us what to stand for and what to stand against.

I am here today for no other reason than the fact that I made a stand as a U.S. Army Specialist on October 10, 1995. It was a simple act. The course set before me was clear. I had no question about where to stand that early fall morning in Schweinfurt, Germany.

It all began on August 21, 1995 when my seniors in the U.S. Army chain of command informed me that my battalion, first of the fifteenth, 3rd Infantry Division, would soon be deployed to a UN operation in Macedonia. However, they said this UN mission would be different from the previous UN mission on which I served in Kuwait. My seniors informed me that this deployment required my battalion to significantly alter our uniforms by removing the U.S. flag from the right shoulder, the senior side of the U.S. Army Battle Dress Uniform, to the left shoulder, and replace the flag with a UN patch, badge and insignia. We would also wear a UN blue beret or helmet.

This seemed like an unusual requirement, to put the UN badge in a more important position on my uniform than the flag. Without knowing a lot about the UN, it seemed wrong to me. The Army taught me that the wearing of a uniform, or the accoutrements of a uniform, was a sign of allegiance and faithfulness to the authority or power so signified. As an American fighting man, how could I wear the badges and insignia of another government? I had taken an oath to the United States of America and no other. I had sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, to obey the orders of the President and those in authority over me. But the Army enlisted oath doesn't bind me to blind obedience, but goes on to say "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me, God."

Like I said in that oath, I fully intended to obey all lawful orders, according to regulations. Congress makes all regulations governing the land and naval forces. And the experts in the military on the wearing of the regulation uniform are the sergeants. So, I asked my sergeant, how we as American soldiers, could wear a "UN uniform" and still be American soldiers? The response I got to my sergeant's level question about the proper wear of the historic U.S. Army uniform was not what I expected. I was threatened with court martial, imprisonment or less than an honorable discharge, if I did not wear the "UN uniform."

And further, I was directed to study the history and objectives of the UN. This I did and I was more proud to be an American than ever before. I knew I did not want to be a member of the UN military force. The UN Charter, their constitution, is based upon very subjective man-made regulations and their brand of human rights are given by the men of the United Nations. Their rights are not like those we have been endowed with by our Creator, but rather can be modified or taken away by the UN. I saw from my own study that the UN's authority and founding principles are diametrically opposed to the founding documents of America, my country, and the United States, my government.

As the time ticked off from August, through September to October, I did not receive an answer from the Army about the lawfulness of the order to wear the badges and insignia of the UN on my uniform, until October 2, 1995, when there was a special unprecedented briefing on the legal basis for deployment to Macedonia and the wearing of the "UN uniform." The five hundred and fifty soldiers in my battalion filed into an auditorium in Schweinfurt to hear from an Army lawyer, who was a West Point graduate. At the end of a 52 minute presentation, he finally came to the answer I had been waiting so many tense weeks to hear. The reason, he says, we wear the UN uniform, is because "they look fabulous!" Everyone in the auditorium laughed. I didn't think it was very funny.

By that time I knew that the UN uniform was not regulation. The only regulation berets, are the Green for Special Forces, the black for Rangers and the maroon for Airborne. None of the seven UN uniform accoutrements have made it into the Army's regulation handbook for soldiers because Congress has not approved the wear of the UN uniform.

My stand was not a matter of conscience, it was a matter of my understanding that there is an objective (stand)ard which doesn't make allowances for what I think or feel about it. I believe that the laws and our Constitution are the final word, and I had sworn to uphold this objective external standard. Thus on October 10, 1995, on a misty fall morning, I walked out into a sea of baby blue, in my historic and completely regulation U.S. Army battle dress uniform. The same uniform in which many a brave soldier has shed blood in order to preserve and protect our American way of life. I was ordered to fall out for not surrendering my regulation BDU. As I followed the my squad leader from the formation that October day, I knew I would never return to my unit and that I was in trouble with a huge institution, one which I care a great deal about, and one in which I strove to be a good soldier.

After I made my intention to stand firm clear to my family, Dad knew I was going to need some legal assistance. My mother and father have been very supportive throughout and I can never thank them enough for standing by each other all these years and especially for standing by me over the past year. They taught me that in life taking a stand could cost me. They were right.

Dad found help for me in Colonel Ronald D. Ray. A retired Marine, Col. Ray is a lawyer, a Vietnam combat veteran and an historian. I received word that I would be court martialed for my stand and Colonel Ray began researching my legal position. He said my stand did not just need a defense. It also needed an offense. He said, "We never win on the defense. We must take the war to them." While he told me my case was conclusive, and that I was on solid legal ground, he did not trust the courts. And, as a Vietnam veteran, he said experience had taught him that you can win all the battles and yet lose the war in the court of public opinion. Therefore Colonel Ray and my father took the offensive war to the airwaves of talk radio and let people know of my stand.

I believe that Colonel Ray was ignited by my stand but he also said he had a belly full of limited "no-win" UN wars, probably from his time in Vietnam. Some of you may be veterans of the Korean war. Korea was the first limited UN war in which victory was not the primary objective. Orders began coming from New York instead of Washington and General MacArthur, who said, "In war there is no substitute for victory," had to be relieved of command. That kind of winning attitude had to be eliminated. Then came Vietnam. It badly marked a generation. Men, deceived by their political leaders, fought half a world away when the real battle was being fought here for the heart and soul of America. It seemed, as I learned more about how the UN military wages "peace" in places like Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia, that Macedonia and Bosnia seemed like more of the same limited "no-win" UN wars.

In January 1996 as we prepared for court martial, my stand would ratchet up in a way I could never have anticipated due to four Presidential letters which appeared in Col. Ray's fax machine from Germany late one evening. These letters were part of the legal discovery the Army owed my defense but they were held back without comment and too late for inclusion in the written legal presentation before the court. These letters would show without question that Bill Clinton had misrepresented the Macedonian deployment to Congress. Mr. Clinton told the Congress in those four letters that the Macedonian mission was not of significant danger to warrant their approval. That was provably not true. The Colonel said that the military judge would never rule on the lawfulness of a Presidential order, so he filed suit against the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army seeking an honorable discharge for me in an independent federal court. The offensive campaign in the Courts, the Congress and the court of public opinion was really accelerating.

The President said the Macedonian deployment was a Chapter VI UN mission. However, 27 UN Security Council Resolutions would refer to the Macedonian deployment as a Chapter VII, which, under the UN Participation Act of 1945, requires Congressional approval. Approval is required because the Constitution provided for a balance of power. The President is not a King. When America sends her sons and daughters into harms way, the voice and will of "We the People" must be heard through our elected representatives. This responsibility and limitation on his Presidential authority was something else Bill Clinton dodged. I clearly understood my stand was now toe to toe with Bill Clinton. On October 10, 1995, my stand was related to my change of status as an American fighting man. I had not questioned foreign policy. Remember, I had asked a sergeant's level question.

1. I was standing against an unlawful order to deploy to Macedonia; 2. refusing the President's order to wear the UN uniform; 3. refusing to serve under a foreign UN commander; 4. and refusing to be required to carry only the UN identification card.

In January 1995, as a result of the Presidential letters, my stand began to be seen in a much larger context, as a stand for the country and a stand for over 30,000 other soldiers unlawfully deployed around the world in UN military operations.

However, on January 24, 1996, I was convicted of not obeying what the prosecution called a "lawful order" even though they admitted in open court in Germany that the uniform was not a regulation uniform. My defense was not allowed to put on the overwhelming evidence that the order was unlawful which pointed to presidential wrongdoing and the failure of Congressional oversight. The military judge basically said it was above his pay grade to rule on Presidential wrong doing and bucked it up to the next judiciary level.

My stand has brought me back to America with a bad conduct discharge and appeals hanging over me in both the civilian and military court systems. I left Germany in the middle of July and traveled to Washington to meet with Congressional leaders whom Colonel Ray had briefed on my stand and its significance to American law and public policy. Because of my stand and the tremendous support my stand has received from many wonderful people like you, Colonel Ray gained access to testify before a Senate foreign policy subcommittee and UN ambassador Madeline Albright had to come and explain by what authority America soldiers are transferred from the U.S. military to the UN military. Through it all, I have simply stood and, until reaching America two weeks, I have not spoken about this matter which shows just how powerful a stand can be.

I am now out of uniform, but the Congress is not out of jeopardy of losing control of America's military to U.N. command and control. But because of my stand, there is legislation now in Congress. H.R. 3308, which is deceptively entitled, "The Armed Forces Protection Act of 1996," has been rightly labeled by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett as "unconstitutional, containing an illegal transfer of Congressional authority to the Executive branch."

If it is passed, H.R. 3308 will give legislative and political cover to President Clinton for his three years of misrepresentation to Congress in sending U.S. soldiers like me on UN military operations to places like Macedonia, forcing us to wear unauthorized UN uniforms, and to serve under foreign UN commanders. These UN commanders take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the United Nations, but after committing themselves to the UN and being put on the UN payroll, they command U.S. troops making life and death decisions over them.

Even President Clinton has admitted that if captured, these troops, unlawfully deployed, fall into a bottomless pit in international law when serving as UN military. They lose important legal protections if taken hostage, as many have been in Macedonia, and that is of critical importance, especially if the one captured is your son, father, uncle, or anyone else in your family.

Substitute legislation has been drafted and offered by my defense team to Congressmen and women to introduce and support in opposition to H.R. 3308. It is entitled "The American Soldier Protection and American Command Preservation Act." It would prevent the president and others from freely internationalizing the U.S. armed forces through the multi-national government of the United Nations. I am told the Republicans have been slow to pick up this legislation and the opportunity to shame Bill Clinton for this bad treatment of American soldiers, especially in an election year. Col. Ray says it is because they don't really disagree with Clinton's UN policies to wage "peace" around the world.

Now, as you can tell, I am not a speaker or a politician. I am a soldier. I swore an oath to the Constitution, took my post and I made my stand. I was proud and comforted to make my stand on October 10, 1995, protected by our Constitution. I have done what I am able to do. Let my stand serve as a sign to you of how far we have gone in subjugating the United States military to the United Nations military. However, I must tell you I do not intend to become a symbol, only a sign to point out, in this case, a hazard. I do not want to be held up as something extraordinary. I did only what I had to do to be able to keep my oath and live with myself.

The message I stand before you today to give you is to contact the Legal Defense Fund, keep up with the latest information in regard to the defense of my stand, which so many of you have kindly adopted. My mission in the courts is simply to obtain an honorable discharge for my honorable disobedience. Also, please stay current with the offensive action taken as a result of my stand, the Congressional legislation developed by Colonel Ray and others more skilled than I, to protect our country and support our troops. If I could cause this much trouble as one person, just think about what you can do. It is up to you.

I am a simple soldier, and I am now a civilian, as I said earlier, I am not a speaker or a politician, but there are those of you who are. And because you are, I charge you this day to take up this effort because the day is coming soon when the U.S. Army Code of Conduct will become as obsolete as General MacArthur became during the Korean war when the code was written I am told by heroes like, Dwayne Thorin, because of the confusion among the ranks about their allegiance: To the UN or U.S? It reads in part:

I will never forget that I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.

I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which make my country free. I will trust in God and in the United States of America.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless America.

============================================================

Ray,

My Internet search about the Michael New case turned up a book review at http://www.conservativebookstore.com/rnew.shtml. Following is an excerpt from that copyrighted review confirming that New refused to serve under a UN commander (and therefore was never given an order by a UN officer).

- -

FEATURED BOOK: "MICHAEL NEW: MERCENARY OR AMERICAN SOLDIER?" BY DANIEL NEW WITH CLIFF KINCAID

REVIEW BY: W.J. RAYMENT

"... In August of 1995 a young soldier was ordered to change his uniform ... Next, he was ordered to serve under a UN commander. He refused to obey, and he was court-martialed. ...

All rights reserved. Copyright 1998

============================================================

Ray,

Another item turned up in my Internet search was a copyrighted article at http://www.otherside.net/newhero.htm. Following is an excerpt confirming that it was a U.S., not UN, order to wear the UN uniform that Specialist New refused, and that his fellow soldiers who obeyed that order were still in the U.S. Army at a moment when they were dressed in UN uniforms.

- -

Michael New: Hero

) 1996 Mark E. Howerter

"The Other Side of the News"

"... On August 21, 1995, Michael New learned that Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton had ordered members of his U.S. Army's 3rd Inf. Div. to wear the blue uniform of the U.N. before they were to be deployed to Macedonia.

On Tuesday, October 10th, 1995, Michael New took a stand against President Clinton and the New World Order when he refused to assemble as a soldier in the U.S. Army dressed in the U.N. uniform. ..."

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 21, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ