Amateur Hour Continues

#35,505
#35,505
Grand Vol said:
And he had best not take any action against them if they were only in Washington for the rally.

You see, unlike you, I actually remember one can take place in political rallies as long as they don't use their military service to promote a particular candidate. If the good General even thinks of going after them just for attending, he'll face a far wider problem.
Click to expand...
1610555159427.jpeg
 
#35,514
#35,514
NorthDallas40 said:
I don’t blame him. Why the JCS’s felt the need to remind people of their oath is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Because it's apparent that the military officer corp is in shambles.

I'm reading David Hackworth's book "About Face" right now and I can see a definite trend going all the way back to immediately following the second WW.
 
#35,515
#35,515
Grand Vol said:
The fact they had to remind military members of their oath is more telling.
Click to expand...
hog88 said:
Because it's apparent that the military officer corp is in shambles.

I'm reading David Hackworth's book "About Face" right now and I can see a definite trend going all the way back to immediately following the second WW.
Click to expand...
Yeah kinda makes you scratch your head for sure. At the end of the day it comes back to “salute/respect the office not the man” and if things have gone that far south where they question that basic statement holding true it’s pretty scary.
 
#35,516
#35,516
NorthDallas40 said:
Yeah kinda makes you scratch your head for sure. At the end of the day it comes back to “salute/respect the office not the man” and if things have gone that far south where they question that basic statement holding true it’s pretty scary.
Click to expand...

Enlisted never swear an oath to respect the President or the office, just to follow his orders. The President isn't even mentioned in the officer oath.
 
#35,518
#35,518
hog88 said:
Enlisted never swear an oath to respect the President or the office, just to follow his orders. The President isn't even mentioned in the officer oath.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand. But the office is the commanding chief of the military. And that is what my comment means. You don’t have to like the SoB you can even hate him. But if a lawful order is passed down its expected to be obeyed. Why the JCS felt the need to remind the military of that is mind boggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#35,519
#35,519
NorthDallas40 said:
Yes I understand. But the office is the commanding chief of the military. And that is what my comment means. You don’t have to like the SoB you can even hate him. But if a lawful order is passed down its expected to be obeyed. Why the JCS felt the need to remind the military of that is mind boggling.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree about following all lawful orders, anyone who fails to do so should be ousted and probably stand a courts martial. The fact that the JCS has so little faith in the troops to follow their oath points to some serious problems within the military at the company and battalion level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and NorthDallas40
#35,520
#35,520
hog88 said:
I absolutely agree about following all lawful orders, anyone who fails to do so should be ousted and probably stand a courts martial. The fact that the JCS has so little faith in the troops to follow their oath points to some serious problems within the military at the company and battalion level.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
#35,521
#35,521
tvolsfan said:

I’d say this feeble attempt at a half measure qualifies as amateur hour.
Click to expand...

Here’s the thing.....
From outside looking in, it kinda appears that Nancy P might hold on to this for the 100 days in an effort to.....I’m not exactly sure what the actual goal would be .....but maybe keep trump from running again in 24. I’m not sure that’s a good idea. It’s unlikely that trump can secure the GOP nominations, especially after the dreaded attack on the capital. So that would leave trump running as an independent. I’d think that the Democrats would want Trump around to split the vote. I’d think most of the Republicans would want Trump gone for that very reason. Waiting 100 days and taking Trump out when they have the votes actually gets rid of a problem for the Republicans and they get to let the Democrats do it for them.

I’m probably wrong though
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#35,522
#35,522
Orangeslice13 said:
Here’s the thing.....
From outside looking in, it kinda appears that Nancy P might hold on to this for the 100 days in an effort to.....I’m not exactly sure what the actual goal would be .....but maybe keep trump from running again in 24. I’m not sure that’s a good idea. It’s unlikely that trump can secure the GOP nominations, especially after the dreaded attack on the capital. So that would leave trump running as an independent. I’d think that the Democrats would want Trump around to split the vote. I’d think most of the Republicans would want Trump gone for that very reason. Waiting 100 days and taking Trump out when they have the votes actually gets rid of a problem for the Republicans and they get to let the Democrats do it for them.

I’m probably wrong though
Click to expand...

Just polics IMO to snuff the movement, Trump would not run again at his age. He can be more productive as a citizen advocate, Probably the reason they want to put him in jail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#35,525
#35,525
Orangeburst said:
Just polics IMO to snuff the movement, Trump would not run again at his age. He can be more productive as a citizen advocate, Probably the reason they want to put him in jail.
Click to expand...

Or they want to put him in jail for inciting his followers to storm the Capital in an attempt to stop the democratic process.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top