The heart of the liberal movement: "STOP thanking the military - they don't do shit "

[P@triot]

Korea was for our freedom. Vietnam was for our freedom. Libya was for our freedom. Beirut was for our freedom. Kuwait was for our freedom. Iraq was for our freedom. And who the fuck out of their mind thinks Afghanistan was NOT for our freedom?!?! Preventing the spread of communism was most definitely "for our freedom".

Been drinking the Kool Aid again I see!
Korea was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Vietnam was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Libya was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Kuwait was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Iraq was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Afghanistan was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?

Preventing the spread of communism was most definitely "for our freedom" How 70's, Really are you still buying into that propaganda? Ok Dog, Answer me this: if we were preventing the spread of communism why didn't we do anything with Cuba a mere 90 miles away?

First of all - we did. Apparently you need to Google "Bay of Pigs"

Second - the Soviet Union parked nuclear warheads there. With the Soviet super-power backing Cuba, it made it a little difficult to "do anything"

Third - the fact that Cuba fell and we didn't prevent it was the wake up call for America.

Now why don't you give us one of those Hollywood liberal theories about how we invaded Iraq for oil (even though we don't have any oil)?

 

[P@triot]

100% of them (hell, even with our military, you Dumbocrats have managed to destroy about 65% of the freedoms we once enjoyed).

Now come on RW, give us one of your classic desperate arguments to defend this pathetic and indefensible article. I mean, you can't afford to be an unbiased, rational human who rightly denounces something despicable if it's done by the left, right? Have to be the good little partisan hack for the cause at all costs! Including the cost of your credibility, which you lost about 6 years ago.

Speaking of credibility,,,,,,, to the "about" 65% of the freedoms" lost.

But if he is right, it destroys his original argument. If the military was protecting our "freedoms", how did the Democrats take away 65% of them?

Because Dumbocrats were not going to turn the U.S. military against themselves when they were stripping freedoms from the American people...

(Seriously Ice, your statement there has to be one of the dumber statements made on USMB).

 

[Iceman]

Speaking of credibility,,,,,,, to the "about" 65% of the freedoms" lost.

But if he is right, it destroys his original argument. If the military was protecting our "freedoms", how did the Democrats take away 65% of them?

Because Dumbocrats were not going to turn the U.S. military against themselves when they were stripping freedoms from the American people...

(Seriously Ice, your statement there has to be one of the dumber statements made on USMB).

Well, then the US Military isn't protecting "our freedoms", if the Democrats are taking them. So which is it, is the military protecting us and the democrats not taking "our freedoms", or is the military failing to protect us by letting the democrats take "our freedoms". So either the military is inept, or the democrats are taking our freedoms. Which is it?

 

[P@triot]

Just a question

If not for our military, which freedoms would you not enjoy today?

100% of them (hell, even with our military, you Dumbocrats have managed to destroy about 65% of the freedoms we once enjoyed).

Now come on RW, give us one of your classic desperate arguments to defend this pathetic and indefensible article. I mean, you can't afford to be an unbiased, rational human who rightly denounces something despicable if it's done by the left, right? Have to be the good little partisan hack for the cause at all costs! Including the cost of your credibility, which you lost about 6 years ago.

Speaking of credibility,,,,,,, to the "about" 65% of the freedoms" lost.

Because...you are under the impression there is one story out there that covered all 65%?

This request would take hundreds - if not thousands - of links. I'm not here to provide you with an education on our history from the time we declared independence up until now. But if you want a starting point for doing your own homework, look at the 20 freedoms we lost just under Obamacare alone...

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

 

[P@triot]

But if he is right, it destroys his original argument. If the military was protecting our "freedoms", how did the Democrats take away 65% of them?

Because Dumbocrats were not going to turn the U.S. military against themselves when they were stripping freedoms from the American people...

(Seriously Ice, your statement there has to be one of the dumber statements made on USMB).

Well, then the US Military isn't protecting "our freedoms", if the Democrats are taking them. So which is it, is the military protecting us and the democrats not taking "our freedoms", or is the military failing to protect us by letting the democrats take "our freedoms". So either the military is inept, or the democrats are taking our freedoms. Which is it?

How is the military "inept" when their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief is not ordering them to stop their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief from stripping the American people of freedoms?

Seriously Iceman, the fact that you believe a spin this profoundly stupid is "clever" on your part is astounding. My jaw is literally on the floor at your stupidity here.

Among many other things, you need to educate yourself on the Posse Comitatus Act.

 

[Desperado]

Korea was for our freedom. Vietnam was for our freedom. Libya was for our freedom. Beirut was for our freedom. Kuwait was for our freedom. Iraq was for our freedom. And who the fuck out of their mind thinks Afghanistan was NOT for our freedom?!?! Preventing the spread of communism was most definitely "for our freedom".

Been drinking the Kool Aid again I see!
Korea was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Vietnam was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Libya was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Kuwait was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Iraq was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?
Afghanistan was a threat to the Freedoms in the United States? How is that?

Preventing the spread of communism was most definitely "for our freedom" How 70's, Really are you still buying into that propaganda? Ok Dog, Answer me this: if we were preventing the spread of communism why didn't we do anything with Cuba a mere 90 miles away?

First of all - we did. Apparently you need to Google "Bay of Pigs"

Second - the Soviet Union parked nuclear warheads there. With the Soviet super-power backing Cuba, it made it a little difficult to "do anything"

Third - the fact that Cuba fell and we didn't prevent it was the wake up call for America.

Now why don't you give us one of those Hollywood liberal theories about how we invaded Iraq for oil (even though we don't have any oil)?

Really, Let me get this straight......
You are calling the Bay of Pigs an American attack on Cuba
Now that is a good one..... Amazingly Alpha 66 is no where to be found in the US Military.

Oil in Iraq? Who knew..... I though you said we were fighting the crazy Communist there?

 

[Iceman]

Because Dumbocrats were not going to turn the U.S. military against themselves when they were stripping freedoms from the American people...

(Seriously Ice, your statement there has to be one of the dumber statements made on USMB).

Well, then the US Military isn't protecting "our freedoms", if the Democrats are taking them. So which is it, is the military protecting us and the democrats not taking "our freedoms", or is the military failing to protect us by letting the democrats take "our freedoms". So either the military is inept, or the democrats are taking our freedoms. Which is it?

How is the military "inept" when their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief is not ordering them to stop their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief from stripping the American people of freedoms?

Seriously Iceman, the fact that you believe a spin this profoundly stupid is "clever" on your part is astounding. My jaw is literally on the floor at your stupidity here.

Among many other things, you need to educate yourself on the Posse Comitatus Act.

So you are admitting, the job of the military is to obey the president, not to protect our freedoms?

 

[bodecea]

Government response to New Jersey and New York after Sandy? One year and counting....

?

Where do they get that? It's like the recent "confederates are really the liberals" thread. It's like "Huh?"

It's like they'll believe anything told them by another RWr.

 

[Desperado]

How is the military "inept" when their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief is not ordering them to stop their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief from stripping the American people of freedoms?

By failing to carry out their Military oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

 

[bodecea]

Well, then the US Military isn't protecting "our freedoms", if the Democrats are taking them. So which is it, is the military protecting us and the democrats not taking "our freedoms", or is the military failing to protect us by letting the democrats take "our freedoms". So either the military is inept, or the democrats are taking our freedoms. Which is it?

How is the military "inept" when their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief is not ordering them to stop their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief from stripping the American people of freedoms?

Seriously Iceman, the fact that you believe a spin this profoundly stupid is "clever" on your part is astounding. My jaw is literally on the floor at your stupidity here.

Among many other things, you need to educate yourself on the Posse Comitatus Act.

So you are admitting, the job of the military is to obey the president, not to protect our freedoms?

The job of the military is to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them including the Commander in Chief...the President.

 

[bodecea]

You're "bwahahah'ing" because I answered a direct question?

Wow [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] - you are one seriously unhinged bull-dyke! You need to come to grips with who you are and accept your sexuality sweetie. Otherwise, you will live your life as miserable and unhinged as you are now.

Ah...here it comes. Rottie can't stick on topic because he's painted himself into the Fail Corner. So, like most failures, he abandons debate for personal attack. Loser.

Paint myself into a corner? Sweetie, I've destroyed you in this thread. You couldn't even grasp the difference between the federal government unconstitutionally forcing me to do something simply because I was born, and the CHOICE to do something imposed by the state government.

And when I explained it (TWICE) you ran from it with your tail between your legs instead of being a big girl and admitting that your point was absurd and nonsensical.

Yes...declare your own little victory.

 

[bodecea]

I love it when Rottie turns around and personally attacks someone who actually agrees with him a great deal.

This guy can't control his angry BS. He's over loaded with piss and vinegar.

You're right - I am "over loaded with piss and vinegar". I have to watch my nation destroyed by idiot parasites like bull dyke who want to live off of their fellow citizens.

I have to my freedoms stripped, 65% of my wealth stolen, and still see my nation $17 trillion in debt because people like bodecea and RW want to live as moochers instead of being big boys and making their own way through life as adults.

You're goddamn right I'm "over loaded with piss and vinegar". That is unquestionably the most accurate thing you've ever said moon. In fact - reps for that post. If only you could be that honest and accurate in all of your posts.

Tissue, little boy?

 

[bodecea]

Just a question

If not for our military, which freedoms would you not enjoy today?

100% of them (hell, even with our military, you Dumbocrats have managed to destroy about 65% of the freedoms we once enjoyed).



Now come on RW, give us one of your classic desperate arguments to defend this pathetic and indefensible article. I mean, you can't afford to be an unbiased, rational human who rightly denounces something despicable if it's done by the left, right? Have to be the good little partisan hack for the cause at all costs! Including the cost of your credibility, which you lost about 6 years ago.

Speaking of credibility,,,,,,, to the "about" 65% of the freedoms" lost.

Don't ruin his "I'm winning" buzz.

 

[Desperado]

How is the military "inept" when their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief is not ordering them to stop their Dumbocrat Commander-in-Chief from stripping the American people of freedoms?

Seriously Iceman, the fact that you believe a spin this profoundly stupid is "clever" on your part is astounding. My jaw is literally on the floor at your stupidity here.

Among many other things, you need to educate yourself on the Posse Comitatus Act.

So you are admitting, the job of the military is to obey the president, not to protect our freedoms?

The job of the military is to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them including the Commander in Chief...the President.

Not Exactly:
The Military oath says:
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the stipulation in the oath? It requires the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

 

[bodecea]

So you are admitting, the job of the military is to obey the president, not to protect our freedoms?

The job of the military is to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them including the Commander in Chief...the President.

Not Exactly:
The Military oath says:
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the stipulation in the oath? It requires the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Yes...that is primary. Thank you. But, having said that, if you want to not obey an order because you perceive it to be illegal...you'd better be right....or life will get really ugly for you.

 

[Desperado]

The job of the military is to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them including the Commander in Chief...the President.

Not Exactly:
The Military oath says:
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the stipulation in the oath? It requires the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Yes...that is primary. Thank you. But, having said that, if you want to not obey an order because you perceive it to be illegal...you'd better be right....or life will get really ugly for you.

No argument from me on that point.

 

[Moonglow]

The job of the military is to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them including the Commander in Chief...the President.

Not Exactly:
The Military oath says:
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the stipulation in the oath? It requires the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Yes...that is primary. Thank you. But, having said that, if you want to not obey an order because you perceive it to be illegal...you'd better be right....or life will get really ugly for you.

The way it was explained to me was, you must obey all commands, even if wrong, and then after the execution of said order you file a complaint.

 

[Desperado]

Not Exactly:
The Military oath says:
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the stipulation in the oath? It requires the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Yes...that is primary. Thank you. But, having said that, if you want to not obey an order because you perceive it to be illegal...you'd better be right....or life will get really ugly for you.

The way it was explained to me was, you must obey all commands, even if wrong, and then after the execution of said order you file a complaint.

Seems that if you file a complaint after the fact it might be too late for some of the people involved.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).
To Obey or Not to Obey

 

[Moonglow]

Yes...that is primary. Thank you. But, having said that, if you want to not obey an order because you perceive it to be illegal...you'd better be right....or life will get really ugly for you.

The way it was explained to me was, you must obey all commands, even if wrong, and then after the execution of said order you file a complaint.

Seems that if you file a complaint after the fact it might be too late for some of the people involved.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).
To Obey or Not to Obey

I was in maintenance at a class 9 building while all the gung-ho soldiers went out on field manures.

 

[KGB]

Not Exactly:
The Military oath says:
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See the stipulation in the oath? It requires the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Yes...that is primary. Thank you. But, having said that, if you want to not obey an order because you perceive it to be illegal...you'd better be right....or life will get really ugly for you.

The way it was explained to me was, you must obey all commands, even if wrong, and then after the execution of said order you file a complaint.

That is incorrect. An order must be lawful. If it isn't then it isn't valid & thus, not followed. The Nuremberg trials disproved the notion of blindly following orders.