Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, the troops on the ground are against the war, the Generals are against

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 09:10 PM
Original message
So, the troops on the ground are against the war, the Generals are against
the war, the American people are against the war, Bush has lost support from Congressional Republican Senators on the war...
Someone tell me when the tanks are going to be rolling up Pennsylvania Avenue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rosco T. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. I would thing it would be more like..
a group of US Marshalls (with backup) arriving at the door of the Whitehouse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I thought so too
BUT he is pissing on the military like no other American President has dared to do.
They were the ones SWORN to protect against all enemies...foreign and domestic.
They would be well within their oath to remove him from office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosco T. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh, I think the Military would be the 'backup'...
but no tanks on the streets..

a) scare the shit out of the people out there

b) ruin the streets with those tank treads.

Must be fiscally responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The tinfoil hatter in me...
Thinks it is part of a plan to increase the reliance on mercenaries (or "private contractors" as the White House and media call them) under the excuse - "well, the regular military couldn't get the job done in Iraq, so we have to increase our reliance on these contractors to fight this new kind of war..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Military oaths
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

For enlisted personnel:

"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

For officers:

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

* * *

Note that each oath is to support and defend the Constitution and not the President or any other person. While enlisted personnel swear to obey orders from the President and those officers appointed to command them, an officer has no such constraint. It could be argued that if the President issued an immoral order -- say, drop nuclear weapons on Iran in an unprovoked pre-emptive strike -- an officer (most likely the top-ranking General of the affected service) could legitimately disobey the order. Google "UCMJ illegal orders" for different points of view about this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 17th 2024, 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC