What's your opinion? How could these so-called patriots accept the lies and chicanery which got us into Iraq in the first place? Isn't that contrary to their beliefs, as Mudrake asks?What I think is that this soldier and many of his comrades in arms were easily duped into believing the propaganda that the Bush White House and the Pentagon fed them. Simply, they were victims of an excellent and pernicious propaganda campaign foisted upon them by a knot of political ideologues who gathered together in the White House: the Neocons. It was the Neocons and the PNAC group who had, not the interest of the American people in mind, but rather a narrow self-serving political agenda and used the Armed Forces of this nation to complete their cunning plan.
In fact, this political agenda is exactly what the Three Percenters and Oath Keepers rail against in their credos. Amazing! Absolutely amazing, yet it is clear that propaganda techniques, when wrapped around the flag and Patriotism, will move many to, in fact, obey orders that are clearly not in the interest of this nation at all.
Please leave a comment.
I don't know if the rules have changed but a skim of this AF Regulation:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.afoats.af.mil/OTS/documents/AFI36-2903.pdf
leads me to beleive that such a patch as the one that photograph in the TPM piece shows is probably against regulations.
This could just be another case like the "Jesus Scopes" thing, where there wasn't a problem till the GODLESS cowards of the liebral media got ahold of the story.
I just read their list of 10 orders they will not obey. I didn't see any of them that would preclude them from following orders in Iraq or on any foreign soil for that matter.
ReplyDeleteFWM: Not the issue. The issue is that every serviceman swears an oath. He or she does not get to choose which parts of that oath they will or will not comply with. They also don't get to create special oaths.
ReplyDeleteDC: Indeed, the patch is against regulations--just as if the soldier was wearing a patch that read "pizza hut" or "red sox."
The oathkeepers are no different than the KKK or any other fringe group.
--JadeGold
U need to bone up on the UCMJ. U are ignorant concerning military law. It forbids folloeing unlawful orders here and abroad
DeleteI like what JadeGold said. For me, these guys are not Oath Keepers as much as Oath Breakers.
ReplyDelete"I like what JadeGold said. For me, these guys are not Oath Keepers as much as Oath Breakers."
ReplyDeleteAnd racisits. Don't forget he also says they are racists.
JG,
ReplyDeleteNo Special Oath. All swear the same oath...true.. to the Constitution. No one asks anyone to pick and choose legal orders. Which one of the 10 orders would you like our service members to obey? Now put yourself in front of a rifle muzzle and answer again.
Nothing in the Oath they take as Oath Keepers is in conflict with anything in the oath they took upon enlistment (or upon commission).
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the patches are against regulation. They're also attached with velcro, and can be switched around rather easily. If some control freak of a senior NCO or junior officer saw the patches on a uniform and decided to make an issue of it, I doubt it would go much past making the soldier remove the patches and making him do some push-ups.
Zorro once again demonstrates that he and the rest of the Oath Keepers are gonna obey the law--when they agree with it, or are afraid of some "control freak" not understanding their "Real American" zeal.
ReplyDeleteI remember when people I knew in HS wanted to beat the shit out of gay people and winos--because the gays and winos were bad--but they made sure to do it when the chance of having to answer for it was minimal.
Don't they leave out reference to the President? Isn't that a violation of their real oath? He is the C-i-C isn't he? And the fact that the whole thing started after Obama took office, sounds to me like it's personal about him and all trumped up with pseudo-patriotism.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie "catches" me:
ReplyDeleteZorro once again demonstrates that he and the rest of the Oath Keepers are gonna obey the law--when they agree with it, or are afraid of some "control freak" not understanding their "Real American" zeal.
Is it your position, then, that we should obey laws that are unconstitutional, and/or disobey those that are?
Mikeb says:
Don't they leave out reference to the President?
Yes, the Oath Keeper Oath doesn't mention the president--an unconstitutional order from the president is still unconstitutional, and therefore illegitimate. But let's set that aside for the moment, and address your charge that the Oath Keeper's Oath is "leaving out" something.
Tell me--if you promised your wife that you would go to the store and get eggs, milk, bread, and ice cream, and then promised your child that you would go to the store and get ice cream, does the second promise "violate" the first?
Isn't that a violation of their real oath?
What do you mean by "real oath," Mikeb? What makes the Oath Keepers' Oath any less real?
And the fact that the whole thing started after Obama took office, sounds to me like it's personal about him and all trumped up with pseudo-patriotism.
And that's how anyone whose own personal prejudices lead them to hostility to what the Oath Keepers are about would choose to see it, despite ZERO evidence supporting that libelous bile.
Zorro, I think you're doing a good bit of spinning there. The omission of the part about obeying the president is highly significant and your example comparing it to going to the store for ice cream is silly
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me this entire movement is about snubbing Obama. This popular attitude was perfectly captured by this disgraceful and disrespectful FOX interview of the president.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteZorro, I think you're doing a good bit of spinning there. The omission of the part about obeying the president is highly significant and your example comparing it to going to the store for ice cream is silly
I thought my analogy pretty adequately illustrated my point that taking two oaths, the second of which does not include a part--even an important part (if you say so)--of the first, doesn't put the two oaths in conflict, and I don't think you've illustrated that it does. The oath of enlistment does not obligate a service member to obey unconstitutional orders, no matter who issues them. I think Nuremberg pretty well established the gross inadequacy of the "just following orders" defense.
It seems to me this entire movement is about snubbing Obama.
The fact that it seems that way to you does not make it so.
This popular attitude was perfectly captured by this disgraceful and disrespectful FOX interview of the president.
Oh--so Bret Baier is an Oath Keeper? I had no idea.
Oh, you don't mean that he is one, but that his attitude toward the president of the Democrats seems to be the same as the one you ascribe to the Oath Keepers?
That's a rather important difference, you know.
Zorro, understanding my thinking perfectly, said, "Oh, you don't mean that he is one, but that his attitude toward the president of the Democrats seems to be the same as the one you ascribe to the Oath Keepers?"
ReplyDelete