Just to clear up a point (Page 18): WELL SAID!! Bravo, Jim100!! 👏👏👏 And thank you very much for your honorable, patriotic service. It is because of the brave like you that the rest...

EmilyD

Jim0001 wrote:

We did what others would not do and went where oth... (show quote)

WELL SAID!! Bravo, Jim100!! 👏👏👏

And thank you very much for your honorable, patriotic service. It is because of the brave like you that the rest of us are free.

I only hope we can keep that freedom....

pescado rojo

Jim0001 wrote:

We did what others would not do and went where oth... (show quote)

You're probably as old as me. I was an MP when it was still 95B. Some prick tried telling me I was a f**e because the MOS got changed to 31B about 25 years after I was discharged.

pescado rojo

Jim0001 wrote:

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal from the keyboard Perry Mason....

I hope you're a patient man. StraightUp is an expert at obfuscation. Not bad at sophistry, either. I dislike having a difference of opinion with someone who has a "pigeon/chessboard approach to debate. Your references to US Code are pointless; others have done so and may as well have been trying to push a rope up a ladder when dealing with a Liberal whose approach manages to be both arrogant and condescending at the same time. You see, He's LIBERAL. He's SMART.

straightUp Loc: California

Jim0001 wrote:

Surfer dude said, "Saluting the president isn't a p**********l order". He got that part right, it is not a p**********l order.

You render proper respect (saluting, for example) to the rank, not the individual wearing it!

Yup.

Jim0001 wrote:

I once had one of my whiners tell me I was violating his constitutional rights when I gave him a lawful order. After a "wall to wall" counseling session, the soldier understood that the constitution does not apply to members of the military. We merely defend it!
He farther understood that is why the military falls under the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ). I was glad that effective counseling set this young soldier on the right azimuth.

I'm glad you were able to set him straight.

This happens in civilian life all the time where people accuse each other or companies in the private sector of violating their constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn't apply to civilians or the private sector either. The laws of the Constitution apply to the government exclusively. In fact, I would argue that it applies to the military more than it does to the private sector on the basis that the military *IS* a part of the government, operating under the command of the Executive Branch.

straightUp Loc: California

Knightlady wrote:

It's too damn early to look for written quotes. I... (show quote)

Economic conditions have been getting worse for the American working class for a very long time. At least since Reagan. It's a systemic problem that a mere president is virtually powerless to change. If you're blaming Biden for your meager budget, it means you really aren't understanding what the problem is.

straightUp Loc: California

WEBCO wrote:

Yes, you can. You just have to be willing to pay the price, of the consequences for your actions. Just like anywhere else in life.

OK. So if your willing to be subjected to court martial, then yes - you CAN choose your own morals. Of course if you have the foresight to know there's going to be a conflict of interest, you can elect NOT to join in the first place. THEN you can follow your morals without legal consequence. :)

straightUp Loc: California

Jim0001 wrote:

We did what others would not do and went where others refused to go! We know something the protected will NEVER know.

About 10% of the people in the military can say that honestly. Anyone on the Internet can say it on false pretenses. Since only 3% of the American people join the military and only 10% of them ever see any action the odds are actually greater that YOU were never in the military.

Jim0001 wrote:

We are part of the extremely small percentage

Those who actually did what you are claiming to have done are indeed a very small percentage, yes.

Jim0001 wrote:

who protects the entitled and cowards like "you know the thing".

Well, that's the theory but there's no evidence to back that up. The evidence says the military protects commercial interests overseas and that the American tax payers foot the bill.

Jim0001 wrote:

His type is typical of those who are too cowardly and selfish to commit to something other than himself.

Well, that's what you want to believe.

Jim0001 wrote:

Were he in another country's culture that I have served in, he would be putting the suicide vests on his own family.

That's not a result of culture... That's a result of living in a country that is oppressed by dictatorships supported by the U.S. military.

Jim0001 wrote:

One can serve with dignity while keeping their values,

Only if your values are limited to following orders.

Jim0001 wrote:

but first one has to serve to put their values on display and not hide behind their draft status.

One can also put their values on display by refusing to serve a military that supports oppression.

Jim0001 wrote:

I'm sure if called upon to serve, his sorry tail would be leaving skid marks across the Canadian border as his family members probably did during Vietnam.

If that was my intention I would not have bothered to register CO. My brother and I were both too young for Vietnam and the older members of my family all served.

Jim0001 wrote:

I had 36 1/2 years' service in the Army (Infantry). I started in the jungle and finished in the sandbox and passed through a few garden spots in between. I have seen many aspects of the human element and have served with thousands of great soldiers. We truly are a brotherhood.

Nice story.

Jim0001 wrote:

I protect and respect the rights of those who dissent and still are man enough to serve.

LOL - In other words the only dissent you tolerate are symbolic gestures.

Jim0001 wrote:

I don't suffer cowardly fools who only give lip service to their country very well.

Like all that lip service about defending our freedom? ;)

Jim0001 wrote:

Those I would not trust to have my back anyway!

When it comes to freedom, I don't trust the military to have my back either. So I guess we're even.

straightUp Loc: California

WEBCO wrote:

Only have to follow "lawful" orders.

Lawful orders can still be immoral.

jo34liw

Doonesbury disappeared from our paper for a while but now appears in the opinion section.

WEBCO

straightUp wrote:

OK. So if your willing to be subjected to court martial, then yes - you CAN choose your own morals. Of course if you have the foresight to know there's going to be a conflict of interest, you can elect NOT to join in the first place. THEN you can follow your morals without legal consequence. :)

I don't see it that way. I saw nothing wrong with serving, almost obligated. I was defending my morals and our country, as I saw it.

I never objected to confronting bad guys, or helping good people. I felt a moral obligation to do so.

WEBCO

straightUp wrote:

Lawful orders can still be immoral.

I see this differently