Defending our Military

[freeatlast]

Hey--you were the one that brought up Pharoah's command to kill all the first-born. And as you're aware--or should be--Egypt equated their leaders with the gods they worshipped, and thus were a theocracy themselves. You used a theocracy example--but you don't want to let me do the same.

So you admit that you would follow the orders of Saul because it was a theocracy. Does that absolve you of the responsibility of disobeying God, since Saul's orders were not what God commanded?

As for "blindly following men"--you misrepresent me. I and others have told you on several occasions on this board that military members are taught to evaluate all orders for their legality, ethics, and morality. Failure to do so makes the military member just as guilty as the one issuing the orders. I even once upon a time gave you a scenario and explained why your answer was incorrect based on legality and morality.

So please--"blindly following men"? Was it blindly following when, as an E-3, the lieutenant asked me if I understood why he had made the decision he did; and I replied that I figured I'd be in long enough to see more stupid decisions? Was it blindly following when I said "no" to my superiors when they asked me to spend $10 million dollars of US taxpayer money on a computer system for the Afghans that I knew they would never use? Was it blindly following when I said "no" to a job position change that would have required me to sustain instead of fixing a financial system that I had already filed multiple complaints against? Was it blindly following when I instituted requirements in a training system that actually caused people to be removed from the training for not meeting standards, whereas the previous ten years had simply been a "graduate 'em and move on to the next batch" mentality?

I personally think I made the right choices in those and other decisions. Please feel free to explain why you might think differently. The net result, whether we agree that they were the right choice or not, is that my superiors thought we should have spent the $10 million; and that I should have taken the position and simply "gone with the flow"; and that I should have stuck with the status quo and simply turned out cannon fodder. For those reasons--which I remind you were my decisions, knowing full well the consequences and repercussions--it was decided that I am no longer promotable.

"Blindly following." To quote Major Haberzatl, my favorite Blackhawk driver: Whatevah.

Apples and oranges. Your fruit diet must be a trip.

 

[Don]

Apples and oranges. Your fruit diet must be a trip.

Then, by all means, retract your theocracy example and try something else. Or at least attempt to explain why your theocracy example is valid, when you later say that a theocracy example doesn't apply because we're not a theocracy.

 

[freeatlast]

Then, by all means, retract your theocracy example and try something else. Or at least attempt to explain why your theocracy example is valid, when you later say that a theocracy example doesn't apply because we're not a theocracy.

Apples and oranges try some meat. :laugh:

 

[Don]

Let me try again, and I promise to write slowly: you used an example based on a theocratic government. When given an example from another theocratic government, you then stated we couldn't use an example of a theocratic government. This is either hypocritical, or double-minded, or even both.

So either explain why your example is applicable while no one else's is, or acknowledge that your reference has no bearing on the discussion so we can move on to applicable discussion points.

 

[freeatlast]

Let me try again, and I promise to write slowly: you used an example based on a theocratic government. When given an example from another theocratic government, you then stated we couldn't use an example of a theocratic government. This is either hypocritical, or double-minded, or even both.

So either explain why your example is applicable while no one else's is, or acknowledge that your reference has no bearing on the discussion so we can move on to applicable discussion points.

Apples and oranges :laugh: Don what I have is a difficult thing with is I think you are an intelligent person. However you post some of the dumbest (no offense) questions when you try and use apples and oranges as your rebuttal. What you are trying to use has no relationship to the question I asked. Unless you keep it in the same parameters you are apples and oranges.

 

[Don]

Apples and oranges :laugh: Don what I have is a difficult thing with is I think you are an intelligent person. However you post some of the dumbest (no offense) questions when you try and use apples and oranges as your rebuttal. What you are trying to use has no relationship to the question I asked. Unless you keep it in the same parameters you are apples and oranges.

(sigh)
You asked: So if we live under a king that says murder all the first born males you will obey, correct?

To which I then asked about you following Saul in killing all the Amelikite babies, although Saul didn't fully follow God's orders. You then replied that you would obey Saul, because of it being a theocracy. So then I pointed out that your first question was also in a theocracy, which begs the point: the egyptian soldiers believed that Pharoah was a god (or at least half-god), and thus believed they were following their god's orders (although we know they were following the wrong god). So where did your original question "fit the parameters"?

Or were you merely trying to insinuate a disparaging view towards SaturnNeptune? i.e., that he would "blindly" follow orders in a non-theocracy with no regard for the legal, ethical, and/or moral considerations? In which case, the situation speaks even more about your character.

You want to keep it apples and apples, then don't introduce oranges. And by all means, don't introduce rotten fruit.

 

[freeatlast]

(sigh)
You asked: So if we live under a king that says murder all the first born males you will obey, correct?

To which I then asked about you following Saul in killing all the Amelikite babies, although Saul didn't fully follow God's orders. You then replied that you would obey Saul, because of it being a theocracy. So then I pointed out that your first question was also in a theocracy, which begs the point: the egyptian soldiers believed that Pharoah was a god (or at least half-god), and thus believed they were following their god's orders (although we know they were following the wrong god). So where did your original question "fit the parameters"?

Or were you merely trying to insinuate a disparaging view towards SaturnNeptune? i.e., that he would "blindly" follow orders in a non-theocracy with no regard for the legal, ethical, and/or moral considerations? In which case, the situation speaks even more about your character.

You want to keep it apples and apples, then don't introduce oranges. And by all means, don't introduce rotten fruit.

[SIZE=+0]Apples and oranges my friend apples and oranges. Ask a relative question and I will respond, but you are asking apples and oranges. [/SIZE]:laugh:

 

[LadyEagle]

Okay, I am throwing in some grapes of wrath here if it starts to get ugly.....just saying.

 

[Arbo]

Apples and oranges. Your fruit diet must be a trip.

Apples and oranges try some meat. :laugh:

Apples and oranges :laugh:
... apples and oranges.

[SIZE=+0]Apples and oranges my friend apples and oranges. . [/SIZE]:laugh:

A good insight into the mind of FAL.

Now if he would only answer Don's question.

 

[Don]

He's not going to, because he'll have to admit that he started down a path that he didn't really want to go; that by answering the question I asked about him following Saul, he'll have to admit that he'd be doing the same thing that he wants our military members to *not* do; and so on.

So just consider this part of the conversation ended. It's too fruity to continue at this point.:laugh:

 

[freeatlast]

He's not going to, because he'll have to admit that he started down a path that he didn't really want to go; that by answering the question I asked about him following Saul, he'll have to admit that he'd be doing the same thing that he wants our military members to *not* do; and so on.

So just consider this part of the conversation ended. It's too fruity to continue at this point.:laugh:

Apples and oranges. You must be a farmer :laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

Back some time ago Webmaster used to put out a list of ISPS that regularly visited BB guess what? Half of them were government!

Never knew that. Well, good. Maybe they can learn a thing or three about what we peons think about how they are running this nation over the cliff.

IMO, the vast majority are BB members who are logging in from the workplace.

 

[Arbo]

He's not going to, because he'll have to admit that he started down a path that he didn't really want to go; that by answering the question I asked about him following Saul, he'll have to admit that he'd be doing the same thing that he wants our military members to *not* do; and so on.

So just consider this part of the conversation ended. It's too fruity to continue at this point.:laugh:

Oh, I know. He's painted himself into a corner and is trying to save face. He got caught and knows it.

 

[poncho]

LadyEagle, here:

First, Sapper, Thank you for what you do in service to our nation. But, by the way, I give you permission to derail this thread and carry on this discussion.

Same with you, poncho. I would rather have this thread derailed than to have most of the other threads derailed. And as long as the discussion remains civil and kind and no personal attacks, I will keep this thread open, even past the 10 page limit, if necessary.

Secondly, poncho, I do agree with a lot of what you say, and thank you for apologizing on this thread.

Now, as I see it, the problem is with the politicians. They lie to us.

And one of the reasons for so much confusion is that they haven't followed the Constitution - Congress has not made a formal declaraton of war since WW2.

We had no business in Viet Nam. Politicians got us there. We had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan let alone "nation building" while fighting a war. Policies of politicians got us there, based on bad intel and pressure from lobbyists (Iraqi National Congress for one).

The American people, like me, are sick of war. We are sick of seeing our money thrown into wars and nation building and foreign "aid" to people who hate us. Libya was a prime example of us arming "rebels" who were some of the same people who were fighting against our troops in Iraq. The American people are sick of seeing caskets coming home (notice how they are never seen on TV? Why do you think there is a government/news blackout on our fallen? Not because of the families, a few maybe, but the politicians know there would have been such a clamor from the American people over it, they decided to cover it up as much as possible. Oh, how nice the presidents do the dutiful thing and lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown every Memorial Day. All the while they send our troops into wars that have no Constitutional basis..)

It is all very disgusting. I don't blame the military. I blame the politicians. They all tell us that our military is needed to "protect our foreign interests" but the truth is our military is being used as cannon fodder to protect the globalists, and on that, you are right, poncho. But I don't blame our military. Because our military doesn't care if if the CIC is a Democrat and the creepist fellow on the planet or a Republican and the creepiest fellow on the planet. They follow orders. It is not the military's fault that gays are allowed to be open in the military and that the DOD celebrated Gay Pride recently. That falls under the political appointment, the Secretary of Defense who is carrying out the orders of the current president. Politicians once again. The Root of all Evil.



Again, some have commented that our military is corrupt. I don't believe the average soldier is corrupt. But if so, the corruption starts at the top, with the CIC and the politicians on both sides that get us into these unnecessary wars.

I agree with you, poncho, on a lot of what you say. But unlike you, I do believe there are people who want to kill us and destroy our nation (and they say so, they call us the Great Satan). The corruption part? Yes, those same people have infiltrated our military as evidenced at Fort Hood. Our politicians and military leaders are too concerned about being politically correct. Corruption? Yes, our politicians on both sides of the aisle have made investments in companies with military contracts and gotten rich off of them (insider trading - what you and I would be in prison for) when they knew they would be voting on funding, etc.

Yes, poncho. There is corruption, but it lies with our leaders from both parties. Not with the troops. Over and out.

You are right LE troops follow orders. Orders their superior officers give. What are they're superior officers doing? Protecting and defending the constitution as they swore to do?

The president says "my authority to make war comes from the UN and the international community not the constitution, not the congress". Right there he is violating the constitution of the United States and his oath of office. Openly.

Not only is he violating it he's laughing about it because he knows Sapper's superiors will follow his orders rather than honor their oath. Seems to me if Sapper's superiors were honorable men they'd refuse to follow the orders given by a man who dares to make such a claim. A man who openly and flagrantly violates his oath of office and the constitution of the United States. A man who is so obviously an enemy of the constitution. Yet they don't even bawk. They follow orders from an enemy of the constitution they swore to defend and expect to be honored for it. They'll get no honor from this here kid until they start acting honorable, period.

Here's my suggestion then do away with swearing to protect and defend the constitution because obviously the military doesn't give a hoot nor holler about honoring that oath from a four general to a buck private. Instead swear an oath to protect and defend the UN, the global bankers, the corporate raiders, and our corupt government.

That's what they're doing when they refuse to protect and defend the constitution by following the orders of their superiors who are not honoring their oath. At least by swearing to protect and defend the globalists they all serve they wouldn't be lying through their teeth upon swearing to protect and defend the constitution. Or better yet just do away with oaths entirely and just follow the orders of whoever or whatever claims to be in authority.

You all wanted me to suggest a solution so there it is.

LE, I wish you would stop saying I don't believe there are people out there who want to kill us because I do most certainly believe there is. The question is why do they want to kill us? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that we've been blowing up their towns and cities, occupying their lands and dividing up their resources for over a hundred years would it?

 

[freeatlast]

You are right LE troops follow orders. Orders their superior officers give. What are they're superior officers doing? Protecting and defending the constitution as they swore to do?

The president says "my authority to make war comes from the UN and the international community not the constitution, not the congress". Right there he is violating the constitution of the United States and his oath of office. Openly.

Not only is he violating it he's laughing about it because he knows Sapper's superiors will follow his orders rather than honor their oath. Seems to me if Sapper's superiors were honorable men they'd refuse to follow the orders given by a man who dares to make such a claim. A man who openly and flagrantly violates his oath of office and the constitution of the United States. A man who is so obviously an enemy of the constitution. Yet they don't even bawk. They follow orders from an enemy of the constitution they swore to defend and expect to be honored for it. They'll get no honor from this here kid until they start acting honorable, period.

Here's my suggestion then do away with swearing to protect and defend the constitution because obviously the military doesn't give a hoot nor holler about honoring that oath from a four general to a buck private. Instead swear an oath to protect and defend the UN, the global bankers, the corporate raiders, and our corupt government.

That's what they're doing when they refuse to protect and defend the constitution by following the orders of their superiors who are not honoring their oath. At least by swearing to protect and defend the globalists they all serve they wouldn't be lying through their teeth upon swearing to protect and defend the constitution. Or better yet just do away with oaths entirely and just follow the orders of whoever or whatever claims to be in authority.

You all wanted me to suggest a solution so there it is.

LE, I wish you would stop saying I don't believe there are people out there who want to kill us because I do most certainly believe there is. The question is why do they want to kill us? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that we've been blowing up their towns and cities, occupying their lands and dividing up their resources for over a hundred years would it?

Sad, but true. :tear:

 

[Don]

LE, I wish you would stop saying I don't believe there are people out there who want to kill us because I do most certainly believe there is. The question is why do they want to kill us? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that we've been blowing up their towns and cities, occupying their lands and dividing up their resources for over a hundred years would it?

Now you've got me curious; between 1912 and 1991, what muslim towns and cities were we blowing up? What muslim lands were we occupying? What muslim resources were we dividing up? All I can think of is Libya and Iran, and those were both in response to actions taken against the US. So please, educate me.

 

[freeatlast]

Now you've got me curious; between 1912 and 1991, what muslim towns and cities were we blowing up? What muslim lands were we occupying? What muslim resources were we dividing up? All I can think of is Libya and Iran, and those were both in response to actions taken against the US. So please, educate me.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were Tripoli and Algiers, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire, and (briefly) the independent Sultanate of Morocco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

 

[saturneptune]

I will not even mention the thoughts (as I want to remain a member of this board) going through my head this evening. While reading the posts by one individual in this thread, someone in another room started playing God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood. Not a good combination this 4th of July eve.

 

[ktn4eg]

I will not even mention the thoughts (as I want to remain a member of this board) going through my head this evening. While reading the posts by one individual in this thread, someone in another room started playing God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood. Not a good combination this 4th of July eve.

Kinda makes me think that some of our BB posters (trollers?) ought to set up shop in some Islamic-controlled nations & rant on their internet forums about such nations' treatment of women.......Wonder how long they'd last doing that? :tear::tear:

 

[Don]

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were Tripoli and Algiers, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire, and (briefly) the independent Sultanate of Morocco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

If you'll recall, Poncho said "for over a hundred years"; that implies a continual effort, and thus why I specified between 1912 and 1991. You had to go back more than 200 years to provide an example.

So if you really want to help out Poncho, stay within the parameters: which muslim towns and cities have we been bombing up until 1991? What muslim lands were we occupying? What muslim resources were we dividing up?