TID: Mystic BBS 1.12 A46   
   MSGID: 3:770/100 d36034a6   
   REPLY: 2:221/360.0 5edb9062   
   TZUTC: 1200   
   On 06 Jun 2020 at 03:47p, Lee Lofaso pondered and said...   
       
    LL> Notice I did not mention anything about "oath of office" in my   
    LL> original post. In my next post, to you, I quoted the oath of office   
    LL> for the president, who never served in the military or swore any   
    LL> oath of enlistment/oath for commissioned officers.   
      
   Stop doubling down when you're wrong: it's not a good look.   
      
    LL> Just so we are both on the same page, here it is with url -   
    LL>    
    LL> https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html   
      
   I already posted a URL.  Do you just insist on being right?   
   Okay. You're right.   
      
    LL> >The UCMJ is quite clear on this: not only do all members   
    LL> >of the military have a right to ignore illegal orders, but   
    LL> >they have an obligation to actively resist those orders.   
    LL>    
    LL> And yet, the joint chiefs of staff went along with their   
    LL> president as he ordered active military to open fire on peaceful   
    LL> protesters (mostly women and children) on church grounds. The   
    LL> soldiers did as they were told, using rubber bullets, pepper   
    LL> spray, and tear gas to mow everybody down.   
      
   No, that was the National Guard and park police, plus   
   some kind of secret police formed from the Bureau of   
   Prisons.  Those were not active duty troops.   
      
    LL> When the president (as C-in-C) gives a soldier a direct order,   
    LL> that soldier is expected to comply. The president is not going   
    LL> to ask a soldier to go find his/her CO, as the president is at   
    LL> that very moment his/her CO.   
      
   No.  The "soldier" (note, I'm a Marine, not a soldier) is   
   only expected to comply if, and only if, the order is legal.   
   Yes, all members of the US military are given training on   
   legal and illegal orders.  Yes, it is explained from entry   
   training onwards that illegal orders are to be actively   
   resisted.   
      
    LL> Disobeying a direct order, especially during a time of war, can get   
    LL> a soldier shot. Or stripped of rank and privilege. How many would be   
    LL> willing to take that chance?   
      
   Pretty much all.  As I've said now, repeatedly, but for   
   some unfathomable reason you seem incapable of absorbing,   
   servicemembers are under no obligation to follow illegal   
   orders, and ignoring such an order is not considered   
   "disobeying a direct order."   
      
    LL> I am sure you do know a number of officers you *think* would take   
    LL> exception to what has recently taken place with Trump ordering active   
    LL> military to open fire on peaceful protesters, with the full blessing   
    LL> of his joint chiefs of staff. But how many of those you know actually   
    LL> would, when put to the test?   
      
   Given that I've seen them do it in combat, I'm willing to   
   bet pretty much all of them wouldn't have a problem telling   
   a 5x draft dodger who considered avoiding STDs in Studio 54   
   his "personal Vietnam" where to shove it.   
      
   Gen Milley shouted the president down in the Oval Office   
   the other day.   
      
    LL> Talk is cheap. Especially when your own head is not on the line.   
    LL> Active duty military, when ordered by their president to do his   
    LL> bidding, will do as they are told. General Honor‚ was and is an   
    LL> honorable man, who did stand up to power when his time of testing   
    LL> came. Told the governor to take a flying hike, rather than have   
    LL> his soldiers fire using live ammunation on kids stealing shoes   
    LL> in department stores.   
      
   You speak with a confidence that is unwarranted given your   
   ignorance of the matter and overall lack of experience with   
   the subject.   
      
   You should stop.   
      
    LL> >And now, respectfully, you should stay in your lane   
    LL> >and shut the fuck up about the military.   
    LL>    
    LL> Silence is complicity. Which is what made Hitler great.   
      
   I'm pretty sure I've been pretty vocal about what I think   
   about Trump.  How dare you evoke Hitler when discussing the   
   US military.   
      
   You're the douche who posted that you had COVID-19 and then   
   tried to scurry behind a lame excuse of quoting someone.   
      
    LL> I will not be silent, and neither should anybody else.   
      
   You have every right to say whatever you want.  I have the   
   right to judge you as a sanctimonious ass who's ignorance and   
   arrogance and propensity for writing walls of unintelligible   
   text do more harm to the causes you claim to care about than   
   they do good.   
      
    LL> We do not need another Hitler. Especially one with orange   
    LL> hair. Even if he doesn't have a funny moustache. Hell,   
    LL> his shade of orange skin is bad enough ...   
      
   Indeed.  Perhaps you can get with the program and actually try   
   and help get rid of the scourge currently occupying the White   
   House?  Posting uninformed claptrap about the military isn't   
   helping.   
   --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/05/28 (Windows/32)   
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/0 57/0 80/1 88/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 120/340 123/131   
   SEEN-BY: 154/10 203/0 218/700 220/70 221/0 1 6 226/17 30 227/114 229/101   
   SEEN-BY: 229/424 426 700 1016 1017 240/1120 5832 249/206 317 261/38   
   SEEN-BY: 267/800 280/464 5003 282/464 1038 288/100 292/854 8125 301/1   
   SEEN-BY: 301/113 310/31 317/3 322/757 340/1000 342/200 396/45 423/120   
   SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/0 1 100 340 772/0 1 220 230 500 801/188 197 202   
   SEEN-BY: 900/100 106 108 902/6 7 25 26 27 920/1 2452/250 5058/104   
   PATH: 770/100 1 280/464 292/854 301/1 80/1 902/27 90/1 229/426