We do not ask the military to explain our civil and human rights to us. In America, the military is carefully put under civilian control. Name a nation in which the military that exercises political power that maintains its liberty.
Videos like this sadden me. When I was learning how to be a fresh new Navy Ensign our DI, MSGT "R" and our class officer, LT "DK" (and those senior to them) made a point. Our primary obligation, they said, was to the Constitution. The temptation to become a political animal and to interpret the Constitution, and our obligation to it, in light of our position and experiences (including those in the field) would increase with rank. We were warned repeatedly of this risk. I fear that these senior officers, good men each and every one of them with many long years of honorable service, fell prey to that temptation.
Mikeb, you're not listening. We have civilian control of the military, not the other way around. The military does not define the civil rights that it protects.
Their opinion, like yours and mine, is based upon their experience. That said, competence, or lack thereof, is not necessarily related to the accuracy of an argument. Pirsig put it well (I always get the quote a little wrong) "The world's biggest idiot can say it's raining. That doesn't make the sun shine."
Contrary to your assertion, my belief regarding their opinion is not based upon the fact that they disagree with me. It is based upon what I observed during the course of a 20+ year military career.
Because these men who have made a career out of defending this country from outside aggression appreciate that we have too much - far too much - domestic firearms aggression, and a sick, failed gun culture.
Dog Gone, thanks to comment moderation, you likely didn't get to read my comment before writing yours. Please read what I wrote. Can you name a country that has asked its military to define civil rights and maintained its liberty? Turkey may be the sole example, if we're loose with our terms, and that's a sad commentary on the state of affairs there.
Actually, most of those with whom I served for over twenty years, who also "made a career out of defending this country from outside aggression", have a different view altogether.
Perhaps I was unclear. That was not my intention. So, to be clear, most of those with whom I served and spoke for over twenty years have a different view.
I'm curious RM, who was planning on invading the US? It would seem to me that if they planned on defending this country and these shores, they'd be here, not in 100 other places around the globe invading, bombing and occupying others who have done us no harm. That tends to piss people off, wouldn't you agree?
Orlin, I wasn't attempting to address where various people are or were stationed, or if the US should have forces there as I didn't want to go off "into the weeds" (it has always been an unfortunate tendency of mine) and leave the original posting unaddressed. While I agree that people don't like being attacked I didn't think it was germane to the topic.
dog gone wrote, "Because these men who have made a career out of defending this country ..."
I see you know nothing of the U.S. military and are sadly mistaken. These men have made a career out of kissing up to higher ups to get promotions. As I said elsewhere on this post, these men are politicians. They are neither patriots nor statesmen.
We do not ask the military to explain our civil and human rights to us. In America, the military is carefully put under civilian control. Name a nation in which the military that exercises political power that maintains its liberty.
ReplyDeleteVideos like this sadden me. When I was learning how to be a fresh new Navy Ensign our DI, MSGT "R" and our class officer, LT "DK" (and those senior to them) made a point. Our primary obligation, they said, was to the Constitution. The temptation to become a political animal and to interpret the Constitution, and our obligation to it, in light of our position and experiences (including those in the field) would increase with rank. We were warned repeatedly of this risk. I fear that these senior officers, good men each and every one of them with many long years of honorable service, fell prey to that temptation.
DeleteI would think theirs is an extremely qualified opinion. Of course, anyone who disagrees with you is - what is it the fell prey to, political?
DeleteMikeb, you're not listening. We have civilian control of the military, not the other way around. The military does not define the civil rights that it protects.
DeleteTheir opinion, like yours and mine, is based upon their experience. That said, competence, or lack thereof, is not necessarily related to the accuracy of an argument. Pirsig put it well (I always get the quote a little wrong) "The world's biggest idiot can say it's raining. That doesn't make the sun shine."
DeleteContrary to your assertion, my belief regarding their opinion is not based upon the fact that they disagree with me. It is based upon what I observed during the course of a 20+ year military career.
Because these men who have made a career out of defending this country from outside aggression appreciate that we have too much - far too much - domestic firearms aggression, and a sick, failed gun culture.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone, thanks to comment moderation, you likely didn't get to read my comment before writing yours. Please read what I wrote. Can you name a country that has asked its military to define civil rights and maintained its liberty? Turkey may be the sole example, if we're loose with our terms, and that's a sad commentary on the state of affairs there.
DeleteDefending us from what? Was Saddam planning an invasion of the US?
DeleteHow about the Taliban? Drink some more Kool-aid.
orlin sellers
Actually, most of those with whom I served for over twenty years, who also "made a career out of defending this country from outside aggression", have a different view altogether.
DeleteYou think most, really?
DeletePerhaps I was unclear. That was not my intention. So, to be clear, most of those with whom I served and spoke for over twenty years have a different view.
DeleteI'm curious RM, who was planning on invading the US? It would seem to me that if they planned on defending this country and these shores, they'd be here, not in 100 other places around the globe invading, bombing and occupying others who have done us no harm. That tends to piss people off, wouldn't you agree?
Deleteorlin sellers
Orlin, I wasn't attempting to address where various people are or were stationed, or if the US should have forces there as I didn't want to go off "into the weeds" (it has always been an unfortunate tendency of mine) and leave the original posting unaddressed. While I agree that people don't like being attacked I didn't think it was germane to the topic.
Deletedog gone wrote, "Because these men who have made a career out of defending this country ..."
DeleteI see you know nothing of the U.S. military and are sadly mistaken. These men have made a career out of kissing up to higher ups to get promotions. As I said elsewhere on this post, these men are politicians. They are neither patriots nor statesmen.
Criminals only want criminals to have guns.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
8 out of ~4,700, I hope they got paid well for their treason.
ReplyDeleteMilitary service men and women are politicians once they get to rank of Colonel.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, these Generals and Admirals do not define my rights. They are supposed to be defending my rights.