Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why would the current administration want such a thing?What the current administration wants to do is ferret out the soldiers that are willing to stand up to command, when it is the wrong thing they are asked to do.
Dems are afraid of We the People. That's why they are trying to gain control over the military.
They should be afraid of us.
Why would the current administration want such a thing?What the current administration wants to do is ferret out the soldiers that are willing to stand up to command, when it is the wrong thing they are asked to do.
Because the current administration is planning on doing something it knows many military personnel will find abhorrent?
This should be setting off all sorts of alarms in the minds of freedom lovers.
First of all, the recruits are mainly 18 year old kids who join up out of both patriotism and to get benefits. They are not generally sophisticated. or privileged from upper middle class households. Then you have officer types who come in via ROTC.Why would the current administration want such a thing?What the current administration wants to do is ferret out the soldiers that are willing to stand up to command, when it is the wrong thing they are asked to do.
Because the current administration is planning on doing something it knows many military personnel will find abhorrent?
This should be setting off all sorts of alarms in the minds of freedom lovers.
Ok. You seem to approve of extremists in the Military. Why?
Ask the TV network that fired her for her racism.Quote Sharon Osborn's racist statement.
Why would the current administration want such a thing?
Because the current administration is planning on doing something it knows many military personnel will find abhorrent?
This should be setting off all sorts of alarms in the minds of freedom lovers.
First of all, the recruits are mainly 18 year old kids who join up out of both patriotism and to get benefits. They are not generally sophisticated. or privileged from upper middle class households. Then you have officer types who come in via ROTC.Why would the current administration want such a thing?What the current administration wants to do is ferret out the soldiers that are willing to stand up to command, when it is the wrong thing they are asked to do.
Because the current administration is planning on doing something it knows many military personnel will find abhorrent?
This should be setting off all sorts of alarms in the minds of freedom lovers.
Ok. You seem to approve of extremists in the Military. Why?
The AF does not have great track record but generally the officer corp prides itself on professionalism and not partisan actions. For some reason(s) that's taken a hit.
And you think allowing Extremists to Serve will moderate this perceived slide?
No. I think the military should explicitly tell new enlisted and officer recruits what can't be posted. Private companies do this.First of all, the recruits are mainly 18 year old kids who join up out of both patriotism and to get benefits. They are not generally sophisticated. or privileged from upper middle class households. Then you have officer types who come in via ROTC.Why would the current administration want such a thing?What the current administration wants to do is ferret out the soldiers that are willing to stand up to command, when it is the wrong thing they are asked to do.
Because the current administration is planning on doing something it knows many military personnel will find abhorrent?
This should be setting off all sorts of alarms in the minds of freedom lovers.
Ok. You seem to approve of extremists in the Military. Why?
The AF does not have great track record but generally the officer corp prides itself on professionalism and not partisan actions. For some reason(s) that's taken a hit.
And you think allowing Extremists to Serve will moderate this perceived slide?
No. I think the military should explicitly tell new enlisted and officer recruits what can't be posted. Private companies do this.
stupidity doesn't always equal extremism. and everyone has prejudices. If people in the military are breaking laws and engaging in political activity .... then discipline is probably needed.
Define "extremist."Why would the current administration want such a thing?What the current administration wants to do is ferret out the soldiers that are willing to stand up to command, when it is the wrong thing they are asked to do.
Because the current administration is planning on doing something it knows many military personnel will find abhorrent?
This should be setting off all sorts of alarms in the minds of freedom lovers.
Ok. You seem to approve of extremists in the Military. Why?
Ask the TV network that fired her for her racism.Quote Sharon Osborn's racist statement.
Probably something like "I don't like Socialism" or some other racial slur.Ask the TV network that fired her for her racism.Quote Sharon Osborn's racist statement.
I'm asking you. What was the racist comment she made?
Define "extremist."
Yeah, well, "recent events" haven't been helpful, but in my limited experience military folks think they are protecting the country and want to be seen that way. It seems to me that limits for their activity have gotten blurred. It would be good to be clear. jmoNo. I think the military should explicitly tell new enlisted and officer recruits what can't be posted. Private companies do this.
stupidity doesn't always equal extremism. and everyone has prejudices. If people in the military are breaking laws and engaging in political activity .... then discipline is probably needed..
Especially in light of the fact that the military can discipline soldiers at the bequest of Command under the UCMJ with nothing more than an Article 15.
It's a non-judicial charge that allows punishment and forfeiture of pay, when the soldier is prepared to agree they fucked up.
.
And you think allowing Extremists to Serve will moderate this perceived slide?.
'Extremist' are already not allowed to serve.
What you mean to say is soldiers that don't agree with Progressive Doctrine or political nonsense,
as being productive towards completing their strategic mission.
You build better soldiers and more effective units by finding ways to facilitate the strengths of diversity ...
Not by tearing up units with divisive policies to satisfy or validate your paranoia or insecurities ...
.
The problem with Extremists is they don’t change. This is a core belief with them. You can’t educate it out of them. No matter what you try they won’t listen.
The most you can do is let them hide it.
That is not diversity. That is the opposite of Diversity.
This is the Military we are talking about. Where they will have weapons pointed at fellow troops. Where Friendly Fire accidents can claim lives. Where the opportunity to kill your fellow soldiers are numerous.
An extremist Muslim threw a grenade into a tent of officers in Kuwait before the Iraq invasion. Another extremist killed several soldiers in a deployment center.
Extremist beliefs make you unsuitable for positions of trust.
We are talking about people who believe violence to achieve their political aims is acceptable.
the military does not use violence to achieve "your" poltical aims. Violence is only acceptable if done to further a lawful order. The question becomes what discipline is ok if applied to an individual soldier in connenciton with an unlawful order. If the soldier acts without an order, he should be prosecuted individually for a crime under the code of justice. A few active duty types seem to have run afoul of this. Guys who no longer serve seem to be pretty common among those who attacked the capital. They will be prosecuted as private citizens.The problem with Extremists is they don’t change. This is a core belief with them. You can’t educate it out of them. No matter what you try they won’t listen.
The most you can do is let them hide it.
That is not diversity. That is the opposite of Diversity.
This is the Military we are talking about. Where they will have weapons pointed at fellow troops. Where Friendly Fire accidents can claim lives. Where the opportunity to kill your fellow soldiers are numerous.
An extremist Muslim threw a grenade into a tent of officers in Kuwait before the Iraq invasion. Another extremist killed several soldiers in a deployment center.
Extremist beliefs make you unsuitable for positions of trust.
We are talking about people who believe violence to achieve their political aims is acceptable..
I was a soldier, and have no use for what you can't do.
Otherwise, you would make a terrible soldier if you were incapable of using violence to achieve objectives associated to your political aims.
What the fuck do you think the military does?
There are some soldiers that you can arm up and point in a particular direction, and they will seriously destroy some shit.
You might not want to invite them to your family's Christmas dinner ... But that isn't their damn job ...
.
the military does not use violence to achieve "your" poltical aims. Violence is only acceptable if done to further a lawful order. The question becomes what discipline is ok if applied to an individual soldier in connenciton with an unlawful order. If the soldier acts without an order, he should be prosecuted individually for a crime under the code of justice. A few active duty types seem to have run afoul of this. Guys who no longer serve seem to be pretty common among those who attacked the capital. They will be prosecuted as private citizens.
But the bigger question is whether the officer ranks are infected with those who'd try to change our politics through force. That demands general court martial. But what of a young and dumb kid who gets "caught up" and fails to challange an order. That's not so easy.
