deedub: funny, I like you too. My salient point, however, is not so much whether some people (because ya gotta admit it's not just gays and it sure isn't gays as some kind of secret-society group) are on a mission, the salient point is what is that mission? My contention is that generally speaking, the only encompassing "mission" would be being able to be truthful about who you are. If you feel that someone taking a name online that reflects a part of their identity (and remember being gay is a categorical identity marker by dint of society - its not necessarily the choice of identification of the gay person) well welcome to the internet! It's how online "life" is; people often choose names they feel reflect upon their "inner" self. A lot of those names are TMI but there you are - people thumbing their nose at politeness and tact when online; that's certainly nothing new!
Sure, some people are on a mission, but to constantly yammer that gays are "forcing" straights to do anything except let them be gay without fear is rather silly. Gays couldn't force straights to do a damned thing being as gays are, you know, in the minority and all.

The law of the USA states that all enlists and military officers must follow orders from commanding officers unless those orders go obviously and undoubtedly against the law of the United States. The United States is a sovereign nation and no member of the US citizenry can claim immunity to US law by stating that UN law trumps it. That is the bottom line. The military must respect the law of the USA over all. My understanding is that refusing to deploy is considered conscientious objection and is punishable by dishonorably discharge and revocation of citizenship rights. This is a fair punishment for refusing to meet the needs of the nation on the battlefield in a time of war. His refusal to commit to his obligation could put ground operations, and potentially lives, at risk. He has the right to take a stand and refuse deployment, but for it he must face the legal consequences for that action.

In addition, most people in this country including most of its legislators and supreme court judges do not consider the war to be "illegal" even on international terms. I wish this war would have been delayed longer to reveal more of the truth. I don't support preemption, except under extreme circumstances. It seems worth the sacrifice to let the enemy have at every opportunity to NOT attack. Bush jumped the gun, but I think it would have been ultimately inevitable. I outright do not even begin to believe that it was based on "Bush lies;" that simply implies that far too many members of our government (these are people, folks, not some big-brother secret society like in the movies) are homicidal maniacs bent on murder and destruction. That might happen in the movies and tabloids, but give me a break. On top of that, the UN has repeatedly shown itself to be mostly impotent in any enforcement operation. It never enforces its resolutions, fails to take any sort of stand against anything, and has shown itself to be corrupt even at its highest levels, at least in the case of Kofi. I have little confidence in the UN. It is too easy to play them for fools.
I understand that no one on the sift supports anything remotely defensive of Bush, but people really should consider what they are really saying when they claim Bush "lied" and MEANT to kill multitudes of people. Bush may not be a great president, but insane tyrannical murder? Let's keep our feet on the ground here.

You can say "face it, the war is illegal" all day long, but I can so easily say "face it, the war is legal" and sound just as block-headed. This is a gray-area argument. Let's not attempt to over-simplify. It just makes us look like close-minded zealots determined to scream our so-called "facts" to the hills.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks Fjnbk - nice work, join the secret society of voweless Gold stars.