No it isn't. It's someone hounding someone else to answer a question. Subject matter is irrelevent.jGilder wrote:TradR made a statement that Amnesty International was hypocritical. I asked him to explain why and provide evidence and documentation. This is very different from answering a question about what should be done concerning US military recruiters who lie use bait & switch tactics to fool people into signing up.NicoMoreno wrote:So, should I do what you did to IRTrad4U and haunt you on multiple threads until you answer this?
My answer was actually in response to something you said.NicoMoreno wrote:Go ahead, repeat it. You asked me if I was joking when I summarized what I thought your conclusion was.
Ok, so you think that this recruiter should be tried in an independent court.jGilder wrote:...perhaps the whole thing should be investigated and the recruiter should be held accountable. ... I think justice would be served if the recruiter was tried by an independent court, and if found guilty, the boys application declared null and void and he be allowed to return home.
Do you also agree that this logic could be extended to all recruits? Because this means that any recruit who says he has been lied to should be able to cause his recruiter to go on trial. Is this your opinion on what should happen?
What if in every single case, the independent trials found the recruiters to be innocent? (This is a "worse-case" scenario) This means that essentially every trial changed nothing. Do you think that this is a valuable use of taxpayer money?
Is there some other (cheaper) way of accomplishing the same thing? Maybe of weeding out the ones who just say they were lied to but have no proof? What happens if someone was lied to, but in fact had no proof? Is it fair that they get stuck staying in the military, while someone else goes free?
And let's say that a recruit went in and right away found out he had been lied to. But then, instead of starting the review process (or trial), he went ahead and got an education. At taxpayer expense. Then he left the military. Should he be allowed to leave without paying for his education?