Veterans Day
- Thread starter molleur
- Start date
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
This is how we show respect to our military this year!
TheBlaze UPDATES OUR ORIGINAL STORY WITH INSIDER SOURCES -- Obama Purging Military Commanders:
TheBlaze UPDATES OUR ORIGINAL STORY WITH INSIDER SOURCES -- Obama Purging Military Commanders:
Attachments
But isn't the military an instrument of the State anyway? Cannot the administration hire & fire as it pleases or are there strict protocols that are not being observed?
Sorry, not sure how it works. Not all that sure here but the UK Military answers to Whitehall (MOD) which usually answers to Parliament, and if they want someone gone - they're gone.
An 'independent' military would be more to be feared than the administration I would have thought...
Sorry, not sure how it works. Not all that sure here but the UK Military answers to Whitehall (MOD) which usually answers to Parliament, and if they want someone gone - they're gone.
An 'independent' military would be more to be feared than the administration I would have thought...
So in essence a guy off the street with 5 years of work experience and zip for military experience can forcefully retire life serving military officers, hell that makes sense! You would think that a congressional panel or military panel would have some say in this.
Not a military panel - that system seems not to be trusted whenever it is deployed but a Congressional one, probably, and invoked perhaps by unconstitutional actions by the Executive Branch? There have to be checks and balances in the system somewhere....
I'm not even going to begin to engage in the current area of discussion. I'd go through the roof.
All I'm going to say is this: that pipsqueak little know-nothing, community organizing, anti-military, left-wing agenda-driven AMATEUR isn't fit to lick the boots of the brass he's firing. And that's understating reality.
All I'm going to say is this: that pipsqueak little know-nothing, community organizing, anti-military, left-wing agenda-driven AMATEUR isn't fit to lick the boots of the brass he's firing. And that's understating reality.
I suppose it has to be looked at from both sides. If you don't care for the CEO particularly, then you might think such 'purges' outrageous, but the 'retirees' may well have been guilty of disloyalty in some way.
Doesn't matter where in the military food chain you sit - you follow orders. If you don't, you're either fired or attend a Courts Martial.
An overt political difference of opinion on strategic issues could translate to 'disloyalty' given credence to a potential lack of trust which could get messy in the field, so, the guy has to go.
When you say "POTUS is firing everyone in the Military that doesn't agree with him", that's one issue but if you said that same sentence and qualified it by saying that they were fired for not obeying orders, that's quite different surely?
They could also be part if a group of card carrying Ku Klux Klan members, or members of the same Masonic Lodge. Who knows for sure?
Sorry, just playing devil's advocate here.
Doesn't matter where in the military food chain you sit - you follow orders. If you don't, you're either fired or attend a Courts Martial.
An overt political difference of opinion on strategic issues could translate to 'disloyalty' given credence to a potential lack of trust which could get messy in the field, so, the guy has to go.
When you say "POTUS is firing everyone in the Military that doesn't agree with him", that's one issue but if you said that same sentence and qualified it by saying that they were fired for not obeying orders, that's quite different surely?
They could also be part if a group of card carrying Ku Klux Klan members, or members of the same Masonic Lodge. Who knows for sure?
Sorry, just playing devil's advocate here.
So you would unconditionally place the military above the elected body?
Do you need a Junta?
Not at all Keith, but when the Pres uses the military to forward his socialistic political goals, it's just wrong!
Oh, HECK no, Keith!!! That's quite clearly a recipe for disaster.
What I AM 'for' is "the people" electing c-o-m-p-e-t-a-n-t leaders who are totally qualified and totally worthy of holding the office they seek. That's especially true when it comes to the office of president. It's darned clear no such person occupies the White House at present.
EVEN OBAMA SAID a few short months BEFORE he threw his hat in the ring the FIRST time that HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!! GOSPEL! Google it! (That's the only TRUTHFUL thing I can remember him ever saying...)
Well, I just ran out of knowledge on that one Jack. I was discussing on a principle of theoretical relationships between elected and non elected participants. But again, you make a statement that's difficult to quantify in a non partisan way, I mean I'm a bit 'socialistic' myself, and so are many others in this site, but I've just checked and I definitely haven't gotta pointed tail..:laugh:
Ok I've no wish to continue on a subject I know nothing about and winding everyone up. Others do it so much better than I :laugh: but I would bow out by saying that your comments are still extremely subjective and do not allow outsiders to weigh this stuff up. I do think most politicians ARE amateurs that hopefully are driven by a passion rather than a career, so yes, it's all plausible that a green whippersnapper could upset the men with granite jaws.
It's impossible to know all the facts unless one is personally involved I believe, but, by all means rant away my friends...
It's impossible to know all the facts unless one is personally involved I believe, but, by all means rant away my friends...
