Military Disgust of President Obama

Originally posted by PammyK
I have something to say that is driving me crazy! I work on a Navy Base and am very close to some of the retired and active duty (Chiefs E7-E9) members. I constantly hear most of them call our new president names and talk in a degrading manner about him. This is unsettling to me. I am a vetran, and always thought that was highly disrespectful. This president was voted in and he is our Commander-In-Chief, Period. Maybe I am naive, but I think that kind of open talk in our military is dangerous. What do you guys think?

As you know Vetrans like to talk, especially about the Military or Politics that something to do with the Military. Also, remember you are talking about the NCOs they will be more talkitive than the Commissioned Officers will be. The retired guys are entitled to their opinion...the one's on activity duty are not to "talk" in that matter. Maybe things have changed-but there was a time that would get you in to deep trouble. They need to keep it to themselves. Like it or not Obama is the President...this disregard for the President (I believe) comes from the past eight years where the Commander and Chief was relentlessly attacked and still is. Now, that the boot is on the other foot-and people and military have seen, heard and now taking apart see this as the norm. Remember that these same NCOs were younger sailors eight years ago.

The Military has a long memory that Dems and Libs have not made their life very easy since Vietnam. Durning the Clinton years the military was short on supplies and equipement and we had a reduced military at that time. Somalia event with regards to the Rangers that were "left behind" is still remembered.

Since I have drifted a little off topic... The Rank and File should not be discussing the President in this matter in uniform and on base. You may not respect the man, but you must respect the rank.

I'd like to ask the serving personnel (current or ex) in this thread, that if they had a doubt to exercise orders in a combat situation, are they allowed to dissent? What are the repercussions?

Are they allowed to exercise 'free thought' and make their own decisions in the heat of combat?

I have no military experience and am curious from a civilian point of view, just how deep that Oath runs in their blood?

Are they a patriot first and foremost to 'the constitution' or do they cherish their humanity over others as a subconscious code of conduct?

Thanks in advance
PoS

Originally posted by ShadowMaster
Since I have drifted a little off topic... The Rank and File should not be discussing the President in this matter in uniform and on base. You may not respect the man, but you must respect the rank.

that is true for any of your superiors, and remembering that you dont have to respect the person, just the rank helps. you may not agree with some decisions but following orders is still required.

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


It's called a court marshall, or a bullet in the back.

I am kidding ofcourse for the ladder.

But dissidents are dealt with swiftly in the army, it runs as a well oiled machine, can't have any "thinking" cogs now can we .

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


that may have been true in the past but the army is not the same place it was 10 or 20 years ago.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy

There are legitimate reasons why the US could and should be in every part of the world but its not our job to police the world.

Well, you may find quite a few Marines who would beg to differ on that. Marines pride themselves in being the 911 for the world. Whether or not that is their official capacity makes no difference - they view themselves as such and take great pride in being the modern day hero for those who cannot defend themselves. All politics aside! There are several points being debated within this topic, and the lines are getting blurred. I am NOT defending politicians, liberals, conservatives, democrats or republicans. I am defending the military personnel, whose job is not to play politics.

The only we do it is to secure our financial and economic interests. I'd say the American populace needs reality check when it comes to their materialistic hyperconsumptive lifestyle.

I agree, but again, that is assuming that EVERY American is materialistic and hyper-consuming. That is simply not the case.

What are these WMD's your friend's supposedly found?

I know that chemical warheads were found. And I know that some weapons caches were not disclosed to the public and the personnel were told not to talk about it. I don't know what those are, but I know they fell into the "WMD" category. This should shock you and make you wonder why the media lied, and why Bush didn't defend it.

Iraq was never a threat to the US. No more than Mexico is a threat to our national security. That's the entire problem...the average soldier doesn't care aout who profits from war. They are blinded by their "duty" and service propaganda.

I'm with you on a lot of things, but some things you don't have correct. To simply state "Iraq was never a threat to the US" is way off. But here again, what are we talking about? Are we talking about real terrorists? Are we talking about hired terrorists? Are we talking about politics? There are so many factors and "what if's" in this topic, that it's virtually impossible to debate without first setting up some common ground.

As far as soldiers being "blinded by their duty", I think that's extremely unfair. If you hold that kind of moral obligation to people you don't know, then you yourself must also be held accountable. There are products and services you use every single day which are owned by corporations that profit from war. Are you blinded by your consumption as well? Or is the beast too big for you to bear, and so you do what only one person can, given the tools you've got? You cannot lay that entire moral burden on the military people without also taking responsibility yourself.

There are starving children in LA that need shoes and medicine and we don't need a 600 billion dollar budget to give it to them.

True...but where is your passion for anti-abortion, and better traffic laws? More people and unborn infants die from those in a few months than what we have lost in the entire war. We HAVE programs to feed starving children in the country. But here's the double standard rearing it's ugly head again...if the starving children in LA truly concerns you, then DO SOMETHING! Meanwhile, military folks ARE doing something to help those around the world, not sitting on a computer and complaining about the job everyone else is doing, because they know there are organizations already helping those within our own borders. It may not be perfect, but if you notice a flaw and it bothers you, then do something about it. Don't bark up the other tree with a double standard.

Your arguments in support of our foreign policy are weak and all too often regurgitated by the military.

I've never said I supported our foreign policy. I have only supported our troops, from THEIR VIEWPOINT. Not all of them agree with why we are there, but again, there are many facets to this debate and too many "what if's". It is NOT black and white, and I'm glad you made that point. I don't see it in B&W.

Your use of the term "liberal" is also typical of the military mindset.

Well, what would you like me to call them? I'd be happy to please. It's just a term to signify what they stand for.

Answer me this...if terrorists are so dangerous then why the hell hasn't there been ANY kind of Muslim extremist terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11? Any whacko nutjob terrorist could buy a couple of AK's and go shoot up some schools or malls. Hell ANY person that wanted to could strap a bomb to their chest and walk into any American mall and blow themselves up. YET NOTHING has happened. It would be very easy to cause terror in the USA. But so far NOTHING. Why is that?

I can't answer that any better than you can. I could give arguments for both sides, but the bottom line is I don't know. Logically, one could say that the much hated Patriot Act has prevented these attacks. In fact, if one were to look at reports released by the White House, many hundreds of these attacks have been thwarted. Is it true? I don't know. But we haven't had another attack like 9/11....yet. It really isn't THAT easy to smuggle bombs around, nor is it easy to coordinate simultaneous attacks. The CIA and FBI have stepped up their game, and perhaps they're just doing a good job. Sure, if you want to be a lone bomber in a grocery store, you could do it, but how would that injure an entire country? It wouldn't. Bigger scaled attacks are not easy to carry out any more.

The war on terror is a joke.

For the most part, I agree. However, unless every single terrorist attack, beginning with Reagan's era, were engineered by shadow groups within the US, I think we still have very real enemies. I don't prefer to call them terrorists....they are radical Jihadists who are killing off the zionists and infidels (non-Muslims) in the name of God.

It's politics and economics plain and simple.

That's what it looks like, but I think it's all about religion and keeping the human race from realizing its strength and potential. Politics and economics only masks the deeper issues. Like you said - divide and conquer. How can our "enemies" fight a war completely about God, while we sit & complain it's all about politics? It doesn't make sense.

reply to post by emeraldzeus

You've got it backwards. I'm more ticked off that WMD's were never defended, and I wanted to know why it was allowed to become a lie. What was the underlying motive for THAT?? That's far more disheartening than the supposed "lie", because our Commander in Chief sold us out. Our troops fought for him, but he didn't fight the media for them. Why? The proof was there, and many troops were told not to talk about what they had found. So just when you think you know the truth, the lies getting deeper.

I would like to know why too.

And why Bush is still silent.

I enjoy your post,

reply to post by emeraldzeus


Zeus, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but to assume that large attacks aren't easy or likely is not easily defended.

Let me give you an example.

Those who would create a disastrous fear and harm to the US could only require 50-100 men.

Consider what one recent Muslim did named John Muhammed. With his little bitch and an AR-15 fired from a port out of the trunk of a car, these two alone struck terror along a wide swath of the Middle East Coast.

Just imagine what 50-100 men could do.

They could shut down entire corridors. Schools. Businesses. Even communications and power grids.

You would not believe how vulnerable we are. Everyone takes our basics for granted.

No power, no water.

One bad switch can create a multistate blackout. Multiple switches taken out on purpose could shut down half the US.

Anyone thinks this is minor should turn off their power for a couple weeks.

Our military can smell * when the get a whiff.

And right now it's blowing coast to coast, civilian to military.

Of course the military is disgusted with Obama. Don't you remember? It was Obama himself that killed those Somali pirates holding that American hostage! Our military is obviously envious of this single great man descended from the heavens. Hes a damn media hog!

Also, I'm sure the military was pretty relieved when it finally came out how far we were willing to take torture. They've been holding that in their conscience for too long. Thank God Obama was able to divulge this information to the rest of the world! Our military can now do their job with a clear conscience.

Harry Reid (another great Democrat) tried his hardest a couple years ago to bring our troops home by admitting our defeat in Iraq. Our military has been thankful ever since. John Kerry stated a couple years ago that the men and women who went to Iraq were basically idiots who couldn't go to college. I'm sure our military loves Obama and his Democrats. What seems to be the problem here?

*Warning* The above post may contain sarcasm.

Originally posted by PammyKThey all hate CNN and love and believe everything FOX news reports.

Just think of it like this. You are just like them, except on the opposite side of the political spectrum. There is no difference between you and them, other than the side you have chosen.

You have subscribed to the left-right political paradigm that is forcibly shoved down our throats by the ruling elite in order to keep us divided and more easy to control.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have cared which president they were criticizing, be it Obama or Bush.

reply to post by Riposte


I can't understand WHY you got a 'star' for that post.

You see, it IS NOT about left/right (whatever that means in today's context)...it is about being able to think independently. It is about being able to think for yourself, rather than to simply parrot what certain Media outlets tell you what to mutter.....

Originally posted by emeraldzeus
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

 

There are legitimate reasons why the US could and should be in every part of the world but its not our job to police the world.

Well, you may find quite a few Marines who would beg to differ on that. Marines pride themselves in being the 911 for the world. Whether or not that is their official capacity makes no difference - they view themselves as such and take great pride in being the modern day hero for those who cannot defend themselves.

Is that what they think ? I don't think the world wants them as their saviors , they see these people as killers , murderers , and rapists . And rightly so . No . you keep your american marines as your own american fictional saviors , don't involve the rest of us in your absurd fantasy.

The americans ... internationally despised , and after 8 years most know it , yet miraculously we have an intrepid and resolute bunch of heroes that did not realise this , and are fighting on regardless for the world they did not know hated them , like the japanese ww2 soldier lost in the jungle still fighting the war a decade later .

Anyway , it just sounds like someone's individual idealism projected onto some arbitrary group and has to be accepted as is without any other indicators to the affirmative . I haven't ever seen it thus indicated . I don't believe these people think they are the worlds hero's , who would think up a notion like that , you have been reading too many superman comics .


[edit on 14-5-2009 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

reply to post by jd140
They all praise Bush, and no, I am not anti-Fox. Just stating the facts about what is being said.

reply to post by jdub297
Actually, I work on a Seal Base and can say I have never heard a Seal say one bad word about him. Seals keep to themselves.

Reply to the OP. Must be a Navy thing. My wife works for the Army, and there's no particular bias for or against Obama than there was for Bush. Realistically speaking, no President "regardless" of politics is "really" going to change things much for the grunts on the ground. We have an all volunteer military and it's not like they aren't told what's in store for them in the military. (And even if they weren't, do they REALLY think they wouldn't have to fight????)

Obama and the Dems in congress are rapidly, sytematically, destroying this country by pursuing fiscal and monetary policies which will cause the downfall of our way of life.

When the SHTF, I am counting on uniformed people to side with the American people, not the criminal gangs who run the country.

reply to post by Grumble


Yeah, Because when Bush handed over the Government, the economy was healthy???? Do you people bother proofreading your own posts?? Is it me John Wayne????

reply to post by BrainPower
Thank you for your service and that info.

Originally posted by PammyK
reply to post by jd140

 

They all praise Bush, and no, I am not anti-Fox. Just stating the facts about what is being said.

The reason they all praise Bush, which I really doubt, is because he atleast pretended to care about us. I don't recall him skipping a troop meet and greet to play some hoops.

Not anti fox?

Generally when one doesn't like something they are against it. Might want to check your past posts and your profile before you try the "I'm not anti fox" come back.

I have a feeling by your past posts that you wouldn't be questioning them if W was still President and they were saying the same thing.

Stating facts the way you see it maybe.

reply to post by Riposte
No, I take no sides. I just told you what I hear.