NationStates Jolt Archive

The RNC convention week was boasting that it has 144 active duty military delegates at the convention - or three percent of the total number of delegates.

(The link to that WAS here
http://www.gopconvention.com/contents/newsroom/articles/081604.shtml
if you go to: http://www.gopconvention.com/contents/newsroom/articles/ you will still see the title for it on Aug 16th entitled "Veterans Set for Republican Convention", but the article has been pulled. Oddly enough - it is the ONLY broken link on the page. See it before it disapears...)


But yet, according to DOD Directive 1344.10, which can be found here this is a violation of the code of military conduct. It explicitly says:

A member on active duty shall not
...
Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).


http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm


So, the GOP was actually bragging about having soldiers violating the UCMJ.....indeed, violating a new initiative just put in place and signed by Wolfowitz after the recent DNC.


Whoopsie!

lol

the whole RNC is about keeping fear in people

if they are afraid, then they will be more likly to support bush

How does one become a delegate anyway? Since I am not a mamber of either of the "main" parties I really do not know how their operations work.

that's what the last 4 years have been based on - keeping the people afraid.

And ABC still has a copy up the news release regarding this:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040816_1414.html

Americans who served in the military will be well represented at the upcoming Republican convention, more so than at last month's Democratic convention or in the U.S. population overall, according to the GOP.
About 15 percent of the 4,800-plus delegates and alternates to the convention in New York are veterans, organizers said Monday. An additional 3 percent are active military personnel.



I'm sure that the organizers are properly reporting these soldiers to the Commander in Chief of the armed forces to be remanded for disciplinary hearings.....

And ABC still has a copy up the news release regarding this:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040816_1414.html



I'm sure that the organizers are properly reporting these soldiers to the Commander in Chief of the armed forces to be remanded for disciplinary hearings.....

I would not be surprised if we later find that this is not the case. 3% of all the delagates is quite a number of people. I can see a lot of veterans joining up to do this, but active duty people would have to take leave to do so and I think there might be more to this than first glance will allow.

So, the GOP was actually bragging about having soldiers violating the UCMJ.....indeed, violating a new initiative just put in place and signed by Wolfowitz after the recent DNC.

So I'm assuming there were active solidiers there (at the DNC), right? It gives a reason for why Wolfowitz put that initiative in place. :D

But didn't it (the article) say veterans?

that's what the last 4 years have been based on - keeping the people afraid.

Last three, actually.

I would not be surprised if we later find that this is not the case. 3% of all the delagates is quite a number of people. I can see a lot of veterans joining up to do this, but active duty people would have to take leave to do so and I think there might be more to this than first glance will allow.

Hey - it's their own numbers. 141 of 4800 delegates is 2.9%


I'm not about to disagree with them as I'm sure every damn one of their delegates had to go through extensive security screening before being allowed anywhere near the convention.

So I'm assuming there were active solidiers there (at the DNC), right? It gives a reason for why Wolfowitz put that initiative in place. :D

But didn't it (the article) say veterans?

The article discussed veterans, but then clearly states that 3% of the delegates are active duty service members.

The article discussed veterans, but then clearly states that 3% of the delegates are active duty service members.

Oh. I couldn't read the RNC articles. Both were broken. And I was too lazy to read the ABC one.. I really gotta start reading more... Anyway, it would make sense to stop active duty personnel from going to the DNC, but not stop them from going to the RNC, after all, you do have to admit, they would be more supported and be told that everyting is fine if they were at the RNC.

Hey - it's their own numbers. 141 of 4800 delegates is 2.9%


I'm not about to disagree with them as I'm sure every damn one of their delegates had to go through extensive security screening before being allowed anywhere near the convention.


Oh I am sure the delegates were checked out thoroughly before being allowed anywhere NEAR the convention and I would not be surprised that we will find that these 3% are either national guard members or are indeed veterans. I cannot imagine that such a thing would get by the powers that be since it would cause such a stir, but stranger things have happened.

Oh I am sure the delegates were checked out thoroughly before being allowed anywhere NEAR the convention and I would not be surprised that we will find that these 3% are either national guard members or are indeed veterans. I cannot imagine that such a thing would get by the powers that be since it would cause such a stir, but stranger things have happened.

Well, they list the veteran quotient at 12% of delegates and the active duty members at 3% - so clearly they already took the time to diferentiate between the two.

So yeah - I'm guessing that the new regulation caught some people off guard leading to this sort of egg-on-face outcome.

How does one become a delegate anyway? Since I am not a mamber of either of the "main" parties I really do not know how their operations work.
It varies a little from state to state, but a delegate is the party version of an elector in the general election. They're usually a member of the local political party who is selected by the local party to represent their candidate at the national convention, and when I say local, I'm talking about very very local here--multiple delegates from the major population centers, etc.

Oh I am sure the delegates were checked out thoroughly before being allowed anywhere NEAR the convention and I would not be surprised that we will find that these 3% are either national guard members or are indeed veterans. I cannot imagine that such a thing would get by the powers that be since it would cause such a stir, but stranger things have happened.According to Eric Alterman of all people, you pegged it. Apparently they're reservists, which gets them around the active duty problem, and which is fine with me.

Honestly, I think banning active political participation by active military is crap. Military personnel are citizens, and deserve to be heard politically as much as anyone else. I think it's reasonable that an active duty military person should be barred from running for office, but not from actively participating in the process.

According to Eric Alterman of all people, you pegged it. Apparently they're reservists, which gets them around the active duty problem, and which is fine with me.

Honestly, I think banning active political participation by active military is crap. Military personnel are citizens, and deserve to be heard politically as much as anyone else. I think it's reasonable that an active duty military person should be barred from running for office, but not from actively participating in the process.

Well...it could be worse. In the UK the military cannot even vote.

I guess I understand the logic--there's an argument to be made that the military should be above political squabbling and that any combination of military and political power generally leads to repression, but still--that's a hell of a sacrifice to ask anyone to make.

Oh my... now the ABC copy of the article suddenly ceased to exist... looks like a lovely cleanup job going on out there.






Must be that Liberal media doing their best to go after the evil Right again...

And the Yahoo Copy is gone: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040816/ap_on_el_pr/gop_delegates_veterans

And the Washington Post copy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A5766-2004Aug16&notFound=true

And the Seattle Post copy: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=GOP%20Delegates%20Veterans

And the LATimes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-gop-delegates-veterans,1,122283.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines


All of them disapeared in the last hour.

Here's one. Get it while you can....
http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0804/166470.html


Damn liberal media.... screwing up my making fun of the GOP!

Damn liberal media.... screwing up my making fun of the GOP!

Maybe....just maybe, the story was a non-story to begin with. They usually remove things once they have been proven to be incorrect. ;)

Maybe....just maybe, the story was a non-story to begin with. They usually remove things once they have been proven to be incorrect. ;)


Usually when something is proven to be incorrect, a notice detailing it is given or a clarification is made. Having a news story pulled everywhere as if it never even existed is NOT normal.

Usually when something is proven to be incorrect, a notice detailing it is given or a clarification is made. Having a news story pulled everywhere as if it never even existed is NOT normal.

Maybe, but I doubt ANYONE has that kind of power.

Was it a wire service story, Zepp? Something from the AP or from Reuters? That would explain why it disappeared, considering that the AP is a subscription service that almost every major news service uses.

If they were not in uniform then its legal. If they were in Uniform then it is illegal.

My dad cannot wear his uniform to something like this but he CAN GO in civilian clothes!

I'm in an Organization called Civil Air Patrol which is the Auxillery of the USAF. I can't wear my uniform to a political event like the convention but I can wear civilian clothes to such.

Just because they are active duty members DOES NOT mean that they can't be there. They CAN provided that they are not in a military uniform.

According to Eric Alterman of all people, you pegged it. Apparently they're reservists, which gets them around the active duty problem, and which is fine with me.

Honestly, I think banning active political participation by active military is crap. Military personnel are citizens, and deserve to be heard politically as much as anyone else. I think it's reasonable that an active duty military person should be barred from running for office, but not from actively participating in the process.
They (active duty personnel) are not barred from participating in the process. The only "hard" prohibition is against active politicking (sp?) while in uniform and/or on-duty.

For example, Sergeant Fiction, based in Texas, decides he is supporting GWB. He can have a bumper sticker on his car. He can post a sign on his lawn...as long as he doesn't reside on base. He can even have a button expressing support for GWB...so long as he doesn't wear it on uniform. He can go to campaign rallies...so long as he doesn't wear his uniform, and doesn't do things that imply support from the DoD for any candidate. He can even be a delegate at a convention, so long as he does it during his personal time (i.e., during vaction time, called "leave,") and it doesn't interfere with his duties. The US Air Force, for one, allows its members time off without charge to vacation, for this purpose (AF Instruction 36-3003.)

What our fictional Sergeant CAN'T do includes (and this is, by no means, a complete list,) active campaigning while on duty, influencing others' votes, or stop others who support other candidates from exercising their right to vote. In fact, as long as it doesn't interfere with the mission, he MUST allow his subordinates the time during Election Day to go vote, if they are registered in the state of Texas, and he can NOT inquire as to whom his subordinates voted for.

The Hatch Act is very specific regarding political activity of Federal employees, and this includes the members of the Armed Forces. I believe Zepp is attempting to link Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the Hatch Act.

----"I would not be surprised if we later find that this is not the case. 3% of all the delagates is quite a number of people. I can see a lot of veterans joining up to do this, but active duty people would have to take leave to do so and I think there might be more to this than first glance will allow. "

Completly, our veterans and active duty personnel are required to give up some of thier Constitutional rights during thier Volunteered commitment of activated service. One obvious one is freedom of speech. You could not denegrate any superior officer above you of course all the way to whoever the commander in cheif was. This is a right that every single active Marine, Soldier, Airman and Sailor sacrifice while they serve us and our country. When they are on leave and or off duty status you may be exempt of.

I dont know why the majority of service members vote for republicans usualy or why unions favor democrats. Because most union workers I know favor gun ownership and the service members favor social programs minded presidents due to the majority are probably coming from either poorer neighborhoods or the people that truly just believe in volunteering and learning and obeying thier country in a time of need and dont care one way or the other who the President is.

I dont know why the majority of service members vote for republicans usualy or why unions favor democrats. Because most union workers I know favor gun ownership and the service members favor social programs minded presidents due to the majority are probably coming from either poorer neighborhoods or the people that truly just believe in volunteering and learning and obeying thier country in a time of need and dont care one way or the other who the President is.

Why do they vote Republican? Because the Republicans take care of the military. The choice is clear....

Want a pay raise....vote Republican.

Want better housing....Vote Republican.

Want better tools to do your job...Vote Republican.

The Democrats have a LONG record of not doing anything for the military.

Simple enough?

The Hatch Act is very specific regarding political activity of Federal employees, and this includes the members of the Armed Forces. I believe Zepp is attempting to link Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the Hatch Act.

Now WHY would a devout Liberal do such a thing? I cannot fathom a reason for that? ;)

Or, perhaps you could actually follow the link and READ the new directive signed into effect on Aguust 2nd by Paul Wolfowitz.

It extends the existing codes to virtually forbid active service members from participation in partisan politics in any way shape or form regardless of whether they are wearing the uniform or not.


http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm

They even throw out a nice set of examples at the bottom:


E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not:

E3.3.1. Use official authority or influence to: interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

E3.3.2. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, State, or local government, except as authorized in paragraph 4.2., above, of this Directive, or engage in public or organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to civil office.

E3.3.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (except as a spectator when not in uniform), or make public speeches in the course thereof.

E3.3.4. Make a contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.

E3.3.5. Solicit or receive a contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.

E3.3.6. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

E3.3.7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

E3.3.8. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

E3.3.9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

E3.3.10. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group or distribute partisan political literature.

E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (reference (b)), or participate in activities proscribed by references (c) and (d).

E3.3.12. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an election day.

E3.3.13. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.

E3.3.14. March or ride in a partisan political parade.

E3.3.15. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.

E3.3.16. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or candidate.

E3.3.17. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and similar fundraising events.

E3.3.18. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces.


No mention of "in uniform" versus "out of uniform" anymore. Simply being on active duty is the only criteria used.

Or, perhaps you could actually follow the link and READ the new directive signed into effect on Aguust 2nd by Paul Wolfowitz.

It extends the existing codes to virtually forbid active service members from participation in partisan politics in any way shape or form regardless of whether they are wearing the uniform or not.


http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm

They even throw out a nice set of examples at the bottom:



No mention of "in uniform" versus "out of uniform" anymore. Simply being on active duty is the only criteria used.

Somehow I think that if this was challenged in court it would be thrown out. Given that the military is vastly pro-Republican for obvious reasons it is odd that this would come out this year and not in years past.

Why do they vote Republican? Because the Republicans take care of the military. The choice is clear....

Want a pay raise....vote Republican.

Want better housing....Vote Republican.

Want better tools to do your job...Vote Republican.

The Democrats have a LONG record of not doing anything for the military.

Simple enough?


Want to risk your life for profits for enormous companies... vote Republican

Want to be ignored in an understaffed underfunded Veteran's Hospital... Vote Republican

Somehow I think that if this was challenged in court it would be thrown out. Given that the military is vastly pro-Republican for obvious reasons it is odd that this would come out this year and not in years past.

Odd or not - there it is.

They still do discuss the "in uniform" vs "out of uniform" issue, but only as it relates to "local, nonpartisan politics".

But hey - these are the same people who, when confronted by the Abu Ghraib scandal immediately mobilized to solve the problem .... by banning soldiers from carrying cameras of any kind.

:rolleyes:

Interesting, isn't it - this directive forbids any kind of communication, private or public, that speaks disparagingly of the president. It could also be interpreted, without the least bit of strain, as forbidding any career officer from speaking out to debunk the (already thoroughly debunked) Swift Boat Vets against Truth.

Want to risk your life for profits for enormous companies... vote Republican

Want to be ignored in an understaffed underfunded Veteran's Hospital... Vote Republican
I tend to notice vets and soldiers don't believe in conspiracies as much as others do. :rolleyes:

Odd or not - there it is.

They still do discuss the "in uniform" vs "out of uniform" issue, but only as it relates to "local, nonpartisan politics".

But hey - these are the same people who, when confronted by the Abu Ghraib scandal immediately mobilized to solve the problem .... by banning soldiers from carrying cameras of any kind.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, that was funny...LOL Now we are seing those idiots and their defense arguments failing. Thats what happens when you use the least common denominator. Sadly thats what the national guard and reserves are....

I tend to notice vets and soldiers don't believe in conspiracies as much as others do. :rolleyes:What conspiracy? Just look at the budget cuts of the past two years. Public record.

What conspiracy? Just look at the budget cuts of the past two years. Public record.
I bolded the top line for a reason.

What conspiracy? Just look at the budget cuts of the past two years. Public record.

Actually the budgets have gone up. They are building new VA hospitals, one in my home town. Still...I would NEVER use a VA hospital and I am a disabled veteran.

Yeah, that was funny...LOL Now we are seing those idiots and their defense arguments failing. Thats what happens when you use the least common denominator. Sadly thats what the national guard and reserves are....

And military intelligence aparently.....

And military intelligence aparently.....

No argument here, I have seen those morons working first hand.....

And military intelligence aparently.....
I thought that was an oxymoron.

I tend to notice vets and soldiers don't believe in conspiracies as much as others do. :rolleyes:


Because of course our leaders who get HUGE handouts by corporate goons to push thru policies that favor large corporations dont exist right? It's all a big conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Because of course our leaders who get HUGE handouts by corporate goons to push thru policies that favor large corporations dont exist right? It's all a big conspiracy. :rolleyes:

No, because we see things in a different light, having been in situations that these so called "conspiricies" are said to have caused.

No, because we see things in a different light, having been in situations that these so called "conspiricies" are said to have caused.

namely?

namely?

Panama....

Remember all the conspiricies that said Bush was only going after Noriega because he "knew" something about Bush when he was head of the CIA?

Panama....

Remember all the conspiricies that said Bush was only going after Noriega because he "knew" something about Bush when he was head of the CIA?


and in what part of the decision making process in this Panama thing were you?

----"Why do they vote Republican? Because the Republicans take care of the military. The choice is clear....Want a pay raise....vote Republican.Want better housing....Vote Republican.Want better tools to do your job...Vote Republican.The Democrats have a LONG record of not doing anything for the military.Simple enough?"

But your assuming that they are interested in only self serving means, that is not the case at all. Your new family becomes your buddies that you serve with, and I remember many debates that I had with many others about why George Bush was much better than Gore as far as our future was concerned. I still stand by that (even though I think they both were jack ass liers in the end), and managed to convert many of my fellow buds. The choice of the lesser of two evils seems to be the only choice both sides have this time also. So choose your evil I guess.

and in what part of the decision making process in this Panama thing were you?

None...but I went...and it was NOT because of some imagined CIA connection. It was about drug dealers using Panama as a staging ground to bring drugs into the US and paying Noriega to allow it.

But your assuming that they are interested in only self serving means, that is not the case at all. Your new family becomes your buddies that you serve with, and I remember many debates that I had with many others about why George Bush was much better than Gore as far as our future was concerned. I still stand by that (even though I think they both were jack ass liers in the end), and managed to convert many of my fellow buds. The choice of the lesser of two evils seems to be the only choice both sides have this time also. So choose your evil I guess.

In the end we are all self-serving entities. It is very simple, you want a payraise....you vote Republican.

Because of course our leaders who get HUGE handouts by corporate goons to push thru policies that favor large corporations dont exist right? It's all a big conspiracy.
There's a difference between pushing through policies that favor large corporations (good, it happens) and going to war for the benifit of these companies (Whacky theory).

None...but I went...and it was NOT because of some imagined CIA connection. It was about drug dealers using Panama as a staging ground to bring drugs into the US and paying Noriega to allow it.

So then you beleive that the official line given to you of why you are being deployed is the one true reason and there is not some other secret reason they could be sending you and giving you false information?

----"So then you beleive that the official line given to you of why you are being deployed is the one true reason and there is not some other secret reason they could be sending you and giving you false information?"

First it all depends on who you are and what your job is (supply clerks or such will be the only people not in the know of the specifics until the end). The only time you are not 'let in on the secret' is if it is a case sensitive mission that requires no questions only answers. Before you go into a theater of war, 'EVERY' viable person will be briefed on the mission, all the way down to exact threat details. You then pass this info down to your fire team leaders and sqaud leaders and again with another passdown from there. People are in the know on a need to know basis yes, which means that if your a part of that specific mission then you will be informed about your specific mission. You are not a pawn as some may like you to believe, you still make every decision from there on out with your own free will. That is why our Volunteer forces are so good at what they do, because we are in the know, just as the American people (even though should not be in some situations) are in the know eventually.

----"So then you beleive that the official line given to you of why you are being deployed is the one true reason and there is not some other secret reason they could be sending you and giving you false information?"

First it all depends on who you are and what your job is (supply clerks or such will be the only people not in the know of the specifics until the end). The only time you are not 'let in on the secret' is if it is a case sensitive mission that requires no questions only answers. Before you go into a theater of war, 'EVERY' viable person will be briefed on the mission, all the way down to exact threat details. You then pass this info down to your fire team leaders and sqaud leaders and again with another passdown from there. People are in the know on a need to know basis yes, which means that if your a part of that specific mission then you will be informed about your specific mission. You are not a pawn as some may like you to believe, you still make every decision from there on out with your own free will. That is why our Volunteer forces are so good at what they do, because we are in the know, just as the American people (even though should not be in some situations) are in the know eventually.

A fair statement, however tactical details have little to do with strategic policy decision making. Knowing everything about in-theatre operations does not tell you why you were sent on the mission.

----"A fair statement, however tactical details have little to do with strategic policy decision making. Knowing everything about in-theatre operations does not tell you why you were sent on the mission. "

Then you are saying that you need to know 'why' you are being sent on a mission? That is ridiculous, what military does that? Did your dad tell you to get him a beer because 'he's a lazy piece of shit'? No. You just do your job and the outcome is desireable. When you sign up in the service you are serving your country, not the other way around. This is why we have strategic and logistic analysts, lets leave them to doing thier job, and the rest of us do ours. Remember when you sign up for service to any country, you automatically sacrifice some of your own rights to ensure the poeple of that country still get to have thiers.

The questions I was posing was because Bill was claiming that he knew the reason they were going in everytime and seemed to be saying that they would never lie to them and have ulterior motives.

Of course politicians base their policies on their financial backers and this will apply to wars as well. If you think that they won't then you are blind.

----"The questions I was posing was because Bill was claiming that he knew the reason they were going in everytime and seemed to be saying that they would never lie to them and have ulterior motives. Of course politicians base their policies on their financial backers and this will apply to wars as well. If you think that they won't then you are blind. "

The politicians run the show! It is left to the General if they want to question something, not regular joe that does not have any depth of knowledge about the situation other than what they 'hear'. That is like you or I coming to the conclusion that all car thiefs are black or mexican, it simply is not true and is why half truths hold no water in light of real world duty's in our military, only direct orders matter.

I don't disagree with that one bit and never implied such - in fact you are reiterating what I was saying in a more sophisticated manner.

I was merely saying that not all conspiracy theories about why wars are waged are false

"I was merely saying that not all conspiracy theories about why wars are waged are false"

I agree but also not all are true neither, and this is not left up to the soldier to debate in any form. You do your duty because a direct order is a fact as far as anyone of them is concerned. Questioning a legal order comes only after you leave the service as Kerry trys to say (since he admitted to seeing or killing innocents then he followed illegal orders, that is illegal though not legal) this still does not excuse you from your own responsiblity just as the so called torture trials will show.

People can try to say that there are catch 22's in the military well they are no differnent than the catch 22's you must abide by here in the states as a citizen as well. A good example would be this, if your state through a vote of its populace chooses to allow certain ailments and side effects from the treatments of those illnesses to go treated with using medical marijuana, and then your doctor reccomends it as a prescription to you. Meanwhile the federal government does not see the legal use of marijuna in anyway legal,so who is to say who is right or wrong? According to the courts they have upheld it to be not a national security concern so it is up to the states. Still who is to say that this is right or wrong either way or the other since one has a law on the books endorsing and the other debunking it? That is why these people must make a decision for themselves not what another wants them to do, the same as when you are confronted with following a legal or an illegal order, make up your own mind and find out the ramifications in these instances. When you dont follow a legal order then you'll get slapped with deriliction to duty and disobeying a direct order, but have you ever heard of anyone getting in trouble for disobeying a direct illegal order?

So then you beleive that the official line given to you of why you are being deployed is the one true reason and there is not some other secret reason they could be sending you and giving you false information?

Yep, I will believe what my commander would tell me before i would believe some conspiracy theory.

Afterall, there is a level of trust in the military that is not found in the civilian world. What a civilian will put up with is not the same as what someone in the military will put up with. Since my retirement I have been appalled at the civilian world and how people act out here. It is simply astonishing to me.

that's what the last 4 years have been based on - keeping the people afraid.
Whose afraid?

----"Yep, I will believe what my commander would tell me before i would believe some conspiracy theory.

Afterall, there is a level of trust in the military that is not found in the civilian world. What a civilian will put up with is not the same as what someone in the military will put up with. Since my retirement I have been appalled at the civilian world and how people act out here. It is simply astonishing to me."


Amen. :confused: