|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (6/30/2010 7:01:06 PM)
|
thompsonx: I believe you have missed my point.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... but no, she didn't miss your point, I got the same thing, from reading your post, that she did. More on that later.
thompsonx: I was not bashing reservist. In our previous discussion I believe I pointed out that stop loss, calling up the national guard and heel and toe rotations were indicators of how mismanaged this war of aggression and agrandisement has been.
Yes, you were bashing reservists, let remind you of what you said:
"It would appear that you are some adolescent who's cousin is a reservist and you watch a lot of rambo movies." --thompsonx
Your intent was clear; you were DEMEANING and DEVALUING the reservists. You did that in a feeble attempt to take away one of the things that makes me more qualified than you are when talking about this topic... the fact that I'm in the military, and the fact that I've recently combat deployed to Iraq... as opposed to your lack of either one.
Your lack of knowledge of both, History and the nature of the war that we're involved with painfully shows with that one statement. One of the main functions of the reserves is to AUGMENT the Active Component so that they could carry out their mission. This isn't something that results from a "mismanaged" war of "aggression" and "Aggrandizement." Quotations used strongly here.
This war was carried out the way it should've been carried out. I've recently seen the results, we've accomplished what we came here to accomplish. We wouldn't have called as many reservists up had people not gone crazy with the military drawdown that happened in the 1990s.
thompsonx: As you point out if one gives one's oath to serve in the military one does not speak of knocking officers on their asses as something that should be done.
First things first, tell that to the Vietnam Veterans that I've talked to in the past. Officers that gave out stupid, but lawyful orders, despite common sense or what wisdom from more experienced service members dictated, which lead to people getting injured or killed, ended up getting knocked on their asses.
If you were a Vietnam Veteran, this wouldn't seem alien to you. The Vietnam War isn't the only war where this happened at. One of the soldiers that I know, a junior NCO, was ready to punch a senior officer in the face for giving out a stupid order that lead to a close call. His orders were followed, then a close call happened.
Second, nowhere in the Oath of Enlistment does it talk about what you talk about:
"I, (NAME), 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" -- Oath of Enlistment
thompsonx: My point was that face chair does not seem to know what being in the military is or what discipline is and is getting his information second hand.
Typical poser comment... accuse someone that has unmasked him as a phony of being, well, a "phony." Your comment is like someone, after reading a book on martial arts, telling someone that's actually a black belt, that he doesn't have a clue of what martial arts is about... after getting thrown down on the mat several times.
None of your posts demonstrate that you have any knowledge of how the real military does business, or what it's like being in the real military. You're relaying nothing but textbook knowledge of what's "supposed" to happen. Your description of what's supposed to happen, and what isn't supposed to happen, belong in the "perfect world," realm of things. Yes, in a perfect world, where human nature doesn't reign supreme, or is non existent, what you say "might" be applicable.
Your argument ignores human nature. For someone that claims to have served in Vietnam, your lack of knowledge on basic human nature painfully shows.
thompsonx: In the real mililtary
You don't know what it's like in the real military, your posts painfully demonstrate that.
thompsonx: it is a crime to even discuss mutiny...knocking an officer on his ass in a combat zone could easily be construed as such...
Mutiny, from the UCMJ:
quote:
ORIGINAL: UCMJ
a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
WHERE, in these two quotes, does it say that an officer was DISOBEYED?
"I was talking about a serious form of corrective training used to set people straight... like a senior NCO knocking a LT on his ass for making a stupid decision that got people killed, or almost got them killed, a decision that common sense dictated he shouldn't have made." - herfacechair
"An officer sends his soldiers to another outpost, despite the convoy commander's suggestion that the officer email the information. On their way there, they get attacked and sustain casualties. Once there, they're told that the information that they provided could've been emailed. The convoy commander, upon RP, knocks that officer on his azz." -- herfacechair
Here, let me simply this for you, HINT, you'll find the following trend in both those statements:
A. Officer gives order.
B. Someone wiser, or common sense, suggests a better plan that doesn't cause unnecessary injury or death.
C. Officer issues the order anyway.
D. Service members carry out the orders.
E. Said service members get injured or killed carrying out the officer's orders... orders that shouldn't have been given due to risk of life, or injury, to the service members when smarter options were available.
F. One of the service members knocks that officer on his azz. Upon RP.
NOWHERE in there does it argue for, in favor, of mutiny.
NOWHERE in there does it argue that we should hit officers if we disagree with their orders.
Anybody reading my posts, written so that even a 5th grader could understand what I'm getting across, wouldn't "construe" that I'm "arguing" that mutiny is "acceptable."
This is another one of your strawman arguments.
thompsonx: to discuss it on a public forum as an acceptable form of behaviour in the military would be a prosecutable offense...
I recommend that you stop hurting yourself by trying to act like you know what you're talking about. There's a big difference between discussing mutiny on a message board, and one's opinion about it, than actually carrying it out, or attempting to carry it out.
thompsonx: he is a fraud and nothing more than a loud mouth adolescent who has watched way too many rambo movies.
My challenge still stands. You were posting on this thread when I challenged people to test their BS claims that I'm other than what I say I am here. Your refusal to accept this challenge, then coming here and continuing to insist that I'm not who I say I am, makes you come across as someone that breaths his own exhaust in.
Here's an analogy that shows you how ridiculous you look when you continue to deny my being in the military:
It's like arguing that "Joe's" car is red against Joe trying to tell you that his car is black. He offers to show his car to a third party so that they could come back to you and verify that the car is black. Instead of accepting the challenge, or acknowledging that you're wrong, you persist with your misguided opinion that his car is red.
How much confidence do you have in your statement? Willing to put your money where your mouth is? Your silence will just prove that you lack confidence in what you say.
|
|
|
|
