Aussie forces exploit loophole to avoid service...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-13 09:31pm

CyberianKnight wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:And you shouldn't get a consent form for taking a vaccine, either. If you sign up to be a soldier, you should be prepared to do what the job entails.
How about if they say it is crucial to the mission that they cut off your arms?

Face it, some things require consent and taking a vaccine with a dubious history is one of those out of respect for a fellow sailor.

The problem is not so much the order/request thing as the fact that the Aussie military is avoiding doing their duty. That's just asking for trouble, especially in a volunteer force.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-13 09:37pm

CyberianKnight wrote: How about if they say it is crucial to the mission that they cut off your arms?

Alot of soldiers don't even come back from missions you dumb shit. Many men have sacrificed much more than what you're asking. Think about that before you post such crap again.

Face it, some things require consent and taking a vaccine with a dubious history is one of those out of respect for a fellow sailor.

News Flash, in the military you do dangerous things. One of them is combat. Getting shot at is dangerous, that is why you wear body armor and a helmet. Flying fighters is dangerous, that is why you strap explosives under your butt. Jumping out of aircraft is dangerous, that is why you wear a parachute. Biological attacks are dangerous, that is why you get vaccines. When you are a soldier, you do what it takes to protect yourself, or you become a liablility, and jeopordize your mission and your unit. If you can't handle that, then you don't sign up in the first place.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-02-13 09:44pm

Consent forms is just one of the reasons why many times order are not carried out too the full extent. if you given an order you do it or possibly face court marshall. There may be exceptions as by the Geneva Convetion.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-13 09:56pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote: How about if they say it is crucial to the mission that they cut off your arms?
Alot of soldiers don't even come back from missions you dumb shit. Many men have sacrificed much more than what you're asking. Think about that before you post such crap again.

Obviously you lack the ability to read and comprehend and have resorted to name calling on your first reply to me nonetheless. Nice going pal.

How about if the commander wanted to use a hack saw to cut your arms off because he said 'it is crucial to the mission' will you consent to that? Its not like it got blown off by enemy fire etc. The probability of anthrax being used on naval vessels is low especially against allied naval vessels because it is US strategy to retaliate disproportionately if such a thing occured. Saddam is not stupid, why do you think the Scuds fired at Israel during Gulf War part 1 had no chem or bio weapons in them?

The vaccine at this stage is unnecessary and its history is dubious, those men and women have no problems laying down their lives for their country when it is needed, not when they are confronted by a vaccine that supposedly helps them but is linked to Gulf War Syndrome. If they'd rather take the risk of anthrax poisoning instead, let them. It is their choice.

Face it, some things require consent and taking a vaccine with a dubious history is one of those out of respect for a fellow sailor.

Wicked Pilot wrote: News Flash, in the military you do dangerous things. One of them is combat. Getting shot at is dangerous, that is why you wear body armor and a helmet. Flying fighters is dangerous, that is why you strap explosives under your butt. Jumping out of aircraft is dangerous, that is why you wear a parachute. Biological attacks are dangerous, that is why you get vaccines. When you are a soldier, you do what it takes to protect yourself, or you become a liablility, and jeopordize your mission and your unit. If you can't handle that, then you don't sign up in the first place.

Like I've said above, such an attack is highly unlikely, therefore the innoculations are not necessary. Also, show me which part of the job description in the Australian Navy said that you must endure vaccinations that can screw you up big time?

Judging by what you've said here, I think you're a person with very little self-respect and consequent to that, a lack of respect for others as well.

Pity

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-13 09:59pm

Stormbringer wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:And you shouldn't get a consent form for taking a vaccine, either. If you sign up to be a soldier, you should be prepared to do what the job entails.
How about if they say it is crucial to the mission that they cut off your arms?

Face it, some things require consent and taking a vaccine with a dubious history is one of those out of respect for a fellow sailor.
The problem is not so much the order/request thing as the fact that the Aussie military is avoiding doing their duty. That's just asking for trouble, especially in a volunteer force.

The Australian is avoiding their duty? Please clarify

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-13 10:02pm

CyberianKnight wrote:The Australian is avoiding their duty? Please clarify

They're being told they'll go to Iraq at the orders of their duly elected government and yet, thanks to a mushminded loophole, they get out of it. That to me suggests shirking their duty.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-13 10:11pm

Stormbringer wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:The Australian is avoiding their duty? Please clarify
They're being told they'll go to Iraq at the orders of their duly elected government and yet, thanks to a mushminded loophole, they get out of it. That to me suggests shirking their duty.

A 'loophole' that the defence force chief defends. A war that the majority of Australians do not support. A deployment that parliament was not consulted on.

Yeah that's 'shirking' their duty. I have faith in our men and women in uniform and I'm sure that most if not all of them would have preferred to stay regardless of the vaccinations and do their jobs they were trained for.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-13 10:18pm

CyberianKnight wrote:How about if the commander wanted to use a hack saw to cut your arms off because he said 'it is crucial to the mission' will you consent to that?

That was your irrevelant analogy, not mine.

The probability of anthrax being used on naval vessels is low especially against allied naval vessels because it is US strategy to retaliate disproportionately if such a thing occured. Saddam is not stupid, why do you think the Scuds fired at Israel during Gulf War part 1 had no chem or bio weapons in them?

1. Your arguement of ignorance concerning the use of bio weapons against ships is just down right stupid. I could easily think of ways for the Iraqis or their sympathizers to infect Austrailian crews at sea. Second, only an idiot goes around underestimating their enemy and tauts it as being a good thing.
2. In the origional GW, the objective was to liberate Kuwaitt, not regime change within Iraq. Saddam knows we're coming for him this time. The most dangerous enemy is one who has nothing to lose.

The vaccine at this stage is unnecessary and its history is dubious, those men and women have no problems laying down their lives for their country when it is needed,

The vaccine is no more dangerous than driving to work. If these people cared about themselves, their unit, and their mission, they'd take the vaccine and stop being little pussies about it.

not when they are confronted by a vaccine that supposedly helps them but is linked to Gulf War Syndrome.

Bullshit, provide some evidence for that claim if you want it taken seriousily.

If they'd rather take the risk of anthrax poisoning instead, let them. It is their choice.

They had a choice not to join the military. Should they also be excused from live-fire exercises if it so scares them? Should sailors be excused of learning to swim if they're afraid of water?

Also, show me which part of the job description in the Australian Navy said that you must endure vaccinations that can screw you up big time?

I could list several. Your inability to think of any shows how little you have thought out your arguement.

Judging by what you've said here, I think you're a person with very little self-respect and consequent to that, a lack of respect for others as well.

And judging by all the ignorant statements you've said so far, you're obviousily a person who has no understanding of risk analysis, uncoventional warfare, the nature of bio weapons, and military service in general.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-13 10:19pm

CyberianKnight wrote:A 'loophole' that the defence force chief defends. A war that the majority of Australians do not support. A deployment that parliament was not consulted on.

Then the defense force cheif is equally to blame.

CyberianKnight wrote:Yeah that's 'shirking' their duty. I have faith in our men and women in uniform and I'm sure that most if not all of them would have preferred to stay regardless of the vaccinations and do their jobs they were trained for.

The fact is they were told by the legal authorities of Australia to go and they didn't for whatever reason. That's shirking their duty.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-13 10:31pm

Stormbringer wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:Yeah that's 'shirking' their duty. I have faith in our men and women in uniform and I'm sure that most if not all of them would have preferred to stay regardless of the vaccinations and do their jobs they were trained for.
The fact is they were told by the legal authorities of Australia to go and they didn't for whatever reason. That's shirking their duty.

They DID go. They left happily on their ships then 2 days into the voyage got told they had to fill out a consent form. Those who didn't sign it were sent back whether they liked it or not.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-13 10:48pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:How about if the commander wanted to use a hack saw to cut your arms off because he said 'it is crucial to the mission' will you consent to that?
That was your irrevelant analogy, not mine.

How is that irrelevent? Your premise is that a soldier should bend over to be arse raped if need be because he signed away his life and all self-interests when he joined. He's basically the military's bitch the moment he signed on the dotted line. You're dodging the question because you know you will never consent to such an action.

1. Your arguement of ignorance concerning the use of bio weapons against ships is just down right stupid. I could easily think of ways for the Iraqis or their sympathizers to infect Austrailian crews at sea. Second, only an idiot goes around underestimating their enemy and tauts it as being a good thing.

List them.

2. In the origional GW, the objective was to liberate Kuwaitt, not regime change within Iraq. Saddam knows we're coming for him this time. The most dangerous enemy is one who has nothing to lose.

I think he's better off using chem and bio weapons on troops that are advancing on his position rather than some ship off shore.

The vaccine is no more dangerous than driving to work. If these people cared about themselves, their unit, and their mission, they'd take the vaccine and stop being little pussies about it.

Oh so you're now insinuating that they do not care about themselves?? Then why are they refusing give consent to a vaccination? For fun?

Bullshit, provide some evidence for that claim if you want it taken seriousily.

http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=567
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=608
http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/AnthraxGWS.htm
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/anthrax11.htm
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/critic.htm

Just to name a few articles that suggests a link.

I could list several. Your inability to think of any shows how little you have thought out your arguement.

Its funny how your second sentence is exactly what I was going to say to you after you claimed that you could list several yet surprisingly haven't.......

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-13 10:50pm

Frankly, Cyberian, all of that is crap. If you sign up to be a soldier, YOU FUCKING TAKE ORDERS. If you don't want to do anything dangerous, don't sign up to be a fucking soldier!

Hey, I know! Maybe if an Aussie soldier refuses to engage in actual combat, he gets sent home! Hell, wouldn't want anyone getting hurt!

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-13 11:07pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Frankly, Cyberian, all of that is crap. If you sign up to be a soldier, YOU FUCKING TAKE ORDERS. If you don't want to do anything dangerous, don't sign up to be a fucking soldier!

Hey, I know! Maybe if an Aussie soldier refuses to engage in actual combat, he gets sent home! Hell, wouldn't want anyone getting hurt!

I perfectly agree, but like I've pointed out before, it WASN'T AN ORDER.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-13 11:10pm

Right; it should have been. If you sign up for the military, you are the military's bitch; nothing should be optional.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-14 04:46am

Gandalf wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Darth Fanboy wrote:Austrailia shouldn't be there, not because the US and Britain don't need/want them, they're good fighters but Austrailia needs to get the whole John howard thing under control and figure out what they're gonna do.
First problem here is getting Howard out from under Bush's desk.
I miss the days when it was just Monica Lewinsky under there, days of innocence, sort of.

US Presidents now give new meaning to fucking a country

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-14 05:08am

HemlockGrey wrote:Frankly, Cyberian, all of that is crap. If you sign up to be a soldier, YOU FUCKING TAKE ORDERS. If you don't want to do anything dangerous, don't sign up to be a fucking soldier!

Hey, I know! Maybe if an Aussie soldier refuses to engage in actual combat, he gets sent home! Hell, wouldn't want anyone getting hurt!

Allright , time for some ANZAC solidarity here methinks.

Australia has a history of obeying their conciance, one of the traits that makes them good soldiers. These guys seem to have found a way to legaly express thir disgust with the governments choice to go to Iraq, and are taking the oppertunity without resorting to other means. Those 'other means' are why the Aussie brass are not pressing the issue.

Defence forces personal are recruited from the same population that disagrees with this deployment and as such can be expected to have broadly similar opinions as the rest of the public.
Aussie Soldiers/sailors/airmen remember Breaker Morant all to well.
Never again will they do something that is against their morals in a war they dissagree with.

If you are unable to comprehend what is being said here you need to look up the concept of the Nuremburg Principle.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-14 05:09am

HemlockGrey wrote:Right; it should have been. If you sign up for the military, you are the military's bitch; nothing should be optional.

I bet thats what conviceted Nazis were talking about at Nuremburg.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-14 09:08am

CyberianKnight wrote:How is that irrelevent? Your premise is that a soldier should bend over to be arse raped if need be because he signed away his life and all self-interests when he joined.

I never said that you homo. Comparing getting your arms chopped off and taking a vaccine is so down right absurd, it's not worth discussing. Tell me, do you also think that parents shouldn't innoculate their children?

List them.

Fine,
Boarding parties can be covertly exposed when inspecting ships in the Gulf. They then track the stuff back on board.
There could be an incident similiar to the USS Cole, but with Anthrax thrown in.
Sailors on shore leave are easy targets. You don't have to be on the ship to be targeted.
Shall I list more?

I think he's better off using chem and bio weapons on troops that are advancing on his position rather than some ship off shore.

Just like he used on SCUDS on advancing troops in the last war. Oops, that didn't happen. And your assertion that Saddam will fight fair is down right stupid. He will go after whoever he can however he can.

Oh so you're now insinuating that they do not care about themselves?? Then why are they refusing give consent to a vaccination? For fun?

They refuse either because they have an irrational fear of vaccines based on ignorance (like yourself), or they're just pussies who don't want to go abroad. I hope it's the former, as that can be fixed.

http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=567
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=608
http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/AnthraxGWS.htm
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/anthrax11.htm
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/critic.htm

And here are the other possible causes
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=733
(unranium poisioning)
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=492
(Archaea Microbials)
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=231
(chemical exposures)
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=226
(sarin gas)

Its funny how your second sentence is exactly what I was going to say to you after you claimed that you could list several yet surprisingly haven't.......

And once again you repeated your arguement from ignorance. Now that I have listed examples, what logical fallacy will you follow next time?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-14 09:43am

I bet thats what conviceted Nazis were talking about at Nuremburg.

It is also the posisition of the United States Armed Forces. Unless you recieve an illegal order, such as one that violates or does harm to the US or the Consitution, you follow it.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-02-14 12:38pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:How about if the commander wanted to use a hack saw to cut your arms off because he said 'it is crucial to the mission' will you consent to that?
That was your irrevelant analogy, not mine.

Yet you justified it by saying that other soldiers have endured worse :rolleyes:

Next time you spot a red herring point it out, not do the same as Hemlock who says (rather retardedly, I must say) that if they order your arms chopped you must accept it like a stupid sucker.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-02-14 12:42pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Frankly, Cyberian, all of that is crap. If you sign up to be a soldier, YOU FUCKING TAKE ORDERS. If you don't want to do anything dangerous, don't sign up to be a fucking soldier!

Hey, I know! Maybe if an Aussie soldier refuses to engage in actual combat, he gets sent home! Hell, wouldn't want anyone getting hurt!

"At ease soldier. For this covert mission, we need to equip you with a concealed weapon. Since they will probably search everything you're carrying, we must saw your leg off and replace it with a wooden one with a secret compartment."

If you think this is a red herring, SAY SO, instead of stupidly saying that it is your DUTY to have your leg sawed off and replaced with a wooden one. YES, I know that being vaccinated and mutilated are VERY different things, but your "rebuttals" seem to imply that you can't tell the difference.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-14 03:14pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Yet you justified it by saying that other soldiers have endured worse

I didn't justify it. I just tried to point out the insensivity of it by reminding people that real soldiers come home from combat with missing limbs, or worse yet they don't come home at all.

Next time you spot a red herring point it out, not do the same as Hemlock who says (rather retardedly, I must say) that if they order your arms chopped you must accept it like a stupid sucker.

He was replying scarcasticly to a false analogy. Why do you even care about this stupid "taking a vaccine is akin to severing one's arms" arguement? It is so absurd that it amazes me that it is still being brought up. Do we need to start a whole new thread titled "Does vaccine = loss of limb?"

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-14 04:41pm

Wicked Pilot and Hemlock Grey have it right! You sign the papers, you lose the abiltity to choose your actions. In a volunteer army you know upfront what you are signing up for, if you agree with your government or not.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-14 07:58pm

Stormbringer wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:The Australian is avoiding their duty? Please clarify
They're being told they'll go to Iraq at the orders of their duly elected government and yet, thanks to a mushminded loophole, they get out of it. That to me suggests shirking their duty.

ACtually, I've been reading interviews with those who have been sent home. The majority of them wanted to remain there, but were sent home for refusing VOLUNTARY injections.

A few of them have been threatened with other actions for refusing injections.

Now, if an injection/innoculation is VOLUNTARY why is it such a bad thing to refuse it.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-14 08:00pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
I bet thats what conviceted Nazis were talking about at Nuremburg.
It is also the posisition of the United States Armed Forces. Unless you recieve an illegal order, such as one that violates or does harm to the US or the Consitution, you follow it.

And it was determined at Nuremberg that it is a soldiers DUTY to question the orders given.