Is Bush the worse US President ever?

[j2k4]

As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.

Baaa, baaa!

Hmmm.

I have to admit I had not thought from the sheep's perspective.

Well stated by an obviously well-experienced shepherd.

[sgt_kermit]

As long as the order is not breaking the law or violating the UCMJ then as a Soldier you are obligated to follow it, regardless of what you personally think.

Baaa, baaa!

What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Baaa, baaa!

What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

[sgt_kermit]

What an eloquent response. Isn't it also typical that you only quote part of my previous response to suit your needs.

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.

[j2k4]

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.

Fugs' post also does us the favor of recognizing that the choice to ignore an order does not occur in a vacuum, and that there are consequences to certain actions.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows the armed service is not where one goes to refine one's anarchic tendencies.

Square pegs need not apply, besides, somebody has to stay home and protest war and such.

[Busyman™]

if I was a soldier in Iraq, I'd be following orders unless they were erroneously wrong.

Parse this, please?

Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.


"He used erroneously with wrong. OMG!"

[j2k4]

Parse this, please?

Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.

Oh, bullshit.

You leave "stuff" for everyone, everywhere.

[Mr JP Fugley]

:busyrod: in The Drawing Room ftw.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I have to confess I sometimes do that as well, however it's more to make obvious the part I'm replying to than for any disingenuous reason. I see no point in quoting a whole post if I only wish to respond to part of it.

I couldn't possibly comment on why anyone else does it.

I find the whole taking orders thing confusing. My simplistic view is that a Soldier, or a Police Officer should follow an order given to them. That is what they joined to do. If something is so against their principles that they cannot do it, then they should present themselves to a superior and say something like "Sir, I cannot carry out your order and with regret must disobey it. As such I offer myself for arrest on a charge of disobeying an order lawfully given".

Thats seems reasonable to me. However it would only be so if the actions (or inaction) ordered were against a deeply held principle, as opposed to just not agreeing with something.

I see your point about just quoting part of the post. As far as the rest of the reply it is well put and I could agree with that to a point. That would be the correct way not to follow an order, but the person would have to be willing to face the consequences. The military requires good order and discipline and if we have a bunch of Soldiers saying they cannot follow a lawful order because they disagree or don't believe in the order would cause havoc. Sometimes there is not time to figure out whether you agree or disagree with something, you must follow the order or a terrorist puts a bullet in you. In America we are an all volunteer force and anyone that joins with an illusion that they will never have to fight in a war is living in the clouds.

Good points, well presented.

Like I said, sometimes when I am confused about an issue I like to approach it in simplistic terms. Black and white if you will. We can then work on the grey areas and consider them in light of the parts with which we agree.

[Busyman™]

Parse what? I love leaving stuff for you.

Oh, bullshit.

You leave "stuff" for everyone, everywhere.

Naw some are jus mistakes. Some aren't.

It all depends on my attention span.