Yahoo 知識+ 將於 2021 年 5 月 4 日 (美國東岸時間) 停止服務，而 Yahoo 知識+ 網站現已轉為僅限瀏覽模式。其他 Yahoo 資產或服務，或你的 Yahoo 帳戶將不會有任何變更。你可以在此服務中心網頁進一步了解 Yahoo 知識+ 停止服務的事宜，以及了解如何下載你的資料。
AMERICANS! Can you please explain?
to me the direct correlation with a person's right to pledge of allegiance and a soldier going abroad (like IRAQ, Afghanistan) fighting for that right?
That internal right would still exist and be intact even if you were not sending military troops abroad to exterminate terrorist cells and help rebuild a peaceful governance in that area? Why do you claim that they are when the two missions are completely different?
5 個解答
- LANLv 76 年前
<sigh>
The pledge isn't a right. It's a commitment. Taking a pledge means that you are making a promise, not being granted a right.
We have an all volunteer force that goes in knowing that they may be called on to serve. Where is it you think a conflict actually exists. Try to make your "question" a little clearer.
- oil field trashLv 76 年前
We only have that right as long as our country is free and not dominated by another country or group. When we fight against terrorists we have looking to keep our country free from control by others.
Even civilians inside the US have to fight legal battles to maintain our rights. There are always politicians who want to slowly erode our rights.
- scott bLv 76 年前
"to me the direct correlation with a person's right to pledge of allegiance and a soldier going abroad (like IRAQ, Afghanistan) fighting for that right?"
I've never, ever heard anyone make that correlation before (except you). However, rights are not "internal". Rights like freedom, justice, pursuit of happiness are rights that need to be monitored, maintained, and yes, sometimes even fought for.
- electricpoleLv 76 年前
I am not sure how the two are related, except that soldiers pledge to up hold the Constitution.
