Quote:
|
Originally Posted by waste gate
For the sake of argument, a question was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?
“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”
This is the most telling piece of the arcticle. By design the military are subservant to the national political authority. Are liberals now in favor of overturning this? Sounds like it. The unfortunate aspect for liberals is that they are unarmed by choice, and victims by predilection and birth.
|
Funny how if you don't like something it's automatically liberal.
Kind of narrow Waste Gate.
responsibility:
An act or course of action that is demanded of one, as by position, custom, law, or religion
They don't have to say no. That is wrong. But if more Generals had of honestly supported Gen Shinseki in claiming the goals were untenable would this disaster have happened? Was it right to fire a Army Chief of Staff because he gave a true assessment when asked by congress about his opinion on this invasion? Would the president have still pressed ahead if faced with the reality of his decision?
I leave it with this quote:
Quote:
|
“We have an obligation that if our civilian leaders give us an order, unless it is illegal, immoral or unethical, then we’re supposed to execute it, and to not do so would be considered insubordinate,” said Major Timothy Jacobsen, another student. “How do you define what is truly illegal, immoral or unethical? At what point do you cross that threshold where this is no longer right, I need to raise my hand or resign or go to the media?”
|
It is enough that this is being questioned.