Not what I signed up for.

[Thumb]

So tonight during the Tigers game I got up for a refill of ice water and noticed Obama was on the TV I left on in the other room, and I made this comment:

Hmm, Obama is on TV, guess we're going to Syria?

To which this was the reply:

Nope, not today, not again, the poeple and our fine military men and women have spoken

http://www.infowars.com/naval-officer-i-didnt-join-to-fight-for-al-qaeda/

I didn't want to respond in the game thread, because that's not the place for it, so I will here.

I am no fan of going to war at all, that said, the people in these photos embarrass the uniform they wear. The simple statement of "Not what I signed up for" is irrelevant. Every man or woman who joins the armed services takes this oath: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. Nowhere does it say, if I feel like it or agree with the orders given to me.

Plenty of people have fought and died for this country and not agreed with our reasons for doing so, but all these people are volunteers. Not one of them was drafted into service.

I hope all the people in those photos are identified and given a court martial.

EDIT: for the court martial, mostly the last 2 photos, since they are stating refusal to serve.

 

[grandy]

Infowars? lol

 

[Mitchrapp]

Eh. Its not like this is the first time the Military people talk about "I'm not doing that"..Though granted, a more powerful image..

In the end, these Military personnel who object might just do what they're told. I don't have a huge problem for them voicing their displeasure.

 

[Thumb]

I did like the headline: Military unites!

LOL 5 guys.

 

[Thumb]

Eh. Its not like this is the first time the Military people talk about "I'm not doing that"..Though granted, a more powerful image..

In the end, these Military personnel who object might just do what they're told. I don't have a huge problem for them voicing their displeasure.

It's not about them voicing their displeasure really. But about them complaining about "what I signed up for". It's not a fucking gym membership, it's military service, and it's not offered ala carte.

 

[Mitchrapp]

It's not about them voicing their displeasure really. But about them complaining about "what I signed up for". It's not a fucking gym membership, it's military service, and it's not offered ala carte.

I get it and don't like seeing it. I remember when we went to Iraq, might have been right after and a couple military people took off and went to Canada. This isn't the first time and they only give themselves a bad rap -- most men and women in the Military are honorable.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Plus, the first and 3rd pic seem to be the same guy. In fact I think those last 3 are the same dude, just changed hats and a different message :nod:

 

[redandguilty]

Every man or woman who joins the armed services takes this oath: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. Nowhere does it say, if I feel like it or agree with the orders given to me.

I disagree with the idea that this oath means that a soldier should just follow orders without voicing opinion. Of course, you only have to follow the orders that adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (because Nazis), but the idea that you won't protest is nowhere in there and if you think your orders aren't the best way to support and defend the Constitution, you should protest. They sign up to support and defend the Constitution. If they, in true faith, don't think fighting in Syria is a part of that, why shouldn't they say it? I'll draw the same line between protesting and refusing orders, but I have no problem with soldiers voicing objection. They should have free speech and the right to vote and all the rights that any other citizen has.

 

[redandguilty]

Plus, the first and 3rd pic seem to be the same guy. In fact I think those last 3 are the same dude, just changed hats and a different message :nod:

Good point. Who's to say any of these people are in the military anyway?

 

[Michchamp]

I disagree with the idea that this oath means that a soldier should just follow orders without voicing opinion. Of course, you only have to follow the orders that adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (because Nazis), but the idea that you won't protest is nowhere in there and if you think your orders aren't the best way to support and defend the Constitution, you should protest. They sign up to support and defend the Constitution. If they, in true faith, don't think fighting in Syria is a part of that, why shouldn't they say it? I'll draw the same line between protesting and refusing orders, but I have no problem with soldiers voicing objection. They should have free speech and the right to vote and all the rights that any other citizen has.

I have no problem with anyone objecting to what they reasonably believe to be an unjust order. and if an order violates the Constitution or the UCMJ it is probably per se unjust.

If, however, someone was defending President Bush's orders from any criticism solely on the basis of "You have to stick with your commander-in-chief," or claiming it was unpatriotic to criticize the President, and now criticizing Obama, or attempting to distinguish between Iraq and Syria to justify why they backed an invasion of the former, but not the latter, I think they are a hypocrite and should be shamed into silence on the issue.

Or punched in the mouth.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I have no problem with anyone objecting to what they reasonably believe to be an unjust order. and if an order violates the Constitution or the UCMJ it is probably per se unjust.

If, however, someone was defending President Bush's orders from any criticism solely on the basis of "You have to stick with your commander-in-chief," or claiming it was unpatriotic to criticize the President, and now criticizing Obama, or attempting to distinguish between Iraq and Syria to justify why they backed an invasion of the former, but not the latter, I think they are a hypocrite and should be shamed into silence on the issue.

Or punched in the mouth.

Why continue to bring up Bush? The dudes been out for awhile, its not about him any longer. Can't you just discuss on whether or not the Military should or shouldn't object?

 

[Michchamp]

Why continue to bring up Bush? The dudes been out for awhile, its not about him any longer. Can't you just discuss on whether or not the Military should or shouldn't object?

oh, I think they should, as I think they should've opposed everything we've done going back to March 2003. I don't see any justifiable reason to bomb Syria, esp. w/out congressional authorization.

I'm just saying that anyone who cheered/defended Bush's wars because of "Support the Troops & don't criticise the Commander-in-chief", and yet is opposing this one, needs to be punched in the mouth.

 

[redandguilty]

If, however, someone was defending President Bush's orders from any criticism solely on the basis of "You have to stick with your commander-in-chief," or claiming it was unpatriotic to criticize the President, and now criticizing Obama, or attempting to distinguish between Iraq and Syria to justify why they backed an invasion of the former, but not the latter, I think they are a hypocrite and should be shamed into silence on the issue.

Or punched in the mouth.

Glad that doesn't apply to me then.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I haven't criticized either. People have the right to basic say whatever they want..which is why the USA is awesome, even with the bad things that happen.

I do like what Thumb said, Military unites - 5 guys :lmao:

 

[Thumb]

I disagree with the idea that this oath means that a soldier should just follow orders without voicing opinion. Of course, you only have to follow the orders that adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (because Nazis), but the idea that you won't protest is nowhere in there and if you think your orders aren't the best way to support and defend the Constitution, you should protest. They sign up to support and defend the Constitution. If they, in true faith, don't think fighting in Syria is a part of that, why shouldn't they say it? I'll draw the same line between protesting and refusing orders, but I have no problem with soldiers voicing objection. They should have free speech and the right to vote and all the rights that any other citizen has.

It's not about voicing their opinions. They have that right under the First Amendment. It's mostly the last 2 guys that pissed me off, where they are saying they will refuse or will not deploy if ordered to. That they do not have the right to do.

Also saying it's not what they signed up for is moronic, military service is not multiple choice.