English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

24 answers

They already have at the top of the ranks with Generals. Bush had them fired and retired with a gag order over the present military.

2007-01-16 06:37:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

Why would the troops speak out? First, it violates the UCMJ for them to do so while on active duty, so speaking out may entail a court martial and seperation with an other than honorable discharge. This is why you didn't hear the troops grumbling from January 1993 to January 2001 - it was against the law.

I guess great Americans and patriots like you don't know this because you never served.

2007-01-16 14:45:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

TROOPS IN THE FIELD ARE NOT IN THE SAME SITUATION AS A CIVILIAN. THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO PICK AND CHOOSE THEIR POISON WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT. WAR SUCKS. BEEN THERE DONE THAT. GUYS WILL ALWAYS B**** EVEN IF THEY ARE STATESIDE. THATS JUST PART OF THE DRILL. TROOPS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY A DAMN THING BECAUSE THEIR JOB IS TO FOLLOW ORDERS AND PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS COUNTRY AND OUR INTERESTS. THE MILITARY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY BY NECESSITY. THEY ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT TO DO. CIVILIAN CONTROL HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE HALLMARK OF OUR COUNTRY. NOW A TROOP MAY BE CRITICAL OF AN ORDER AND HAS THE ABILITY EXCEPT IN THE MIDDLE OF COMBAT TO QUESTION THOSE ORDERS TO HIS SUPERIORS. BUT THE MILITARY IS SUBJECT TO CIVILIAN CONTROL AND DIRECTION AND THAT IS NOT NEGOTIABLE. THE TROOPS SHOULD NEVER SPEAK OUT. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO PARALIZE THE GOVERNMENT, LET THE MILITARY GET INVOLVED IN THE DEBATE. GUARANTEED TO THOROUGHLY MUCK UP THE PROBLEM BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION.

2007-01-16 14:35:30 · answer #3 · answered by Rich S 4 · 3 1

what the heck is all this labeling crap? Man, I need to keep up on things I guess. I always figgered I was a cowboy and a conservative. Now we got this here neo-conservative? What else is there I'm missin' out on. Someone gots lots of time to sit and figger out all these fancy labels fer people's way of thinkin'. Come to think of it, I can't believe I got sucked into this in the middle of the day. I best be on my way out the door to actually get some work done today. Knew there was a reason I never turn this contraption on during my lunch.

2007-01-16 14:26:15 · answer #4 · answered by Tom S 2 · 5 0

Call them unamerican if you must,but the fact that some of the men in Iraq,actually "see the feasibility" of a bunch of GI's,demanding two differing ideas to become one,or...What? We're gonna kill ya/ That sounds a lot like the manner Saddam went about keeping these people in line...Or how about, Let's all walk around,wait to get fired upon.so we can identify the enemy, and then fire back...Wow! what a plan,huh!!

2007-01-16 14:34:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Is that any different than the lefties that call the troops that support the war neo-conservative and unamerican?

2007-01-16 14:28:13 · answer #6 · answered by Amer-I-Can 4 · 5 1

No conservatives believe in free speech. The American military overwhelmingly supports the war on terror(reenlistment is high) and our right to defend ourselves against terrorist. I think a better question is why liberals call our soldiers baby-killers and murders while they are defending our way of life and our right to speak out, even if we bash America.

2007-01-16 14:35:07 · answer #7 · answered by slodana2003 4 · 3 0

I was in the navy until recently. I can tell you why more troops aren't speaking out, it's because they've been forbade to do so. When you join the military, you literally give up the right to free speech and can be punished for speaking out against your superiors (and that's including all the way up to the president). They are constantly griping about it amongst each other, but if they go to the press and present an opinion different from ANYONE their superior, they may be subject to NJP (non-judicial punishment) at least, and unless they're all doing it en mass, they don't want to risk trouble for themselves.

2007-01-16 14:36:05 · answer #8 · answered by c4n7_b3_ur_5up3rm4n 2 · 1 3

Why are you now concerned with the values of our troops. They have been complaining about the negative propaganda coming from the left since the beginning of the war, and you refused to listen to them.
Do you feel that, now you have succeeded in destroying their morale?
What's next. Would you like to have your picture taken w/ Osama?

2007-01-16 14:31:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

well, i seem to recall a few of the more rapid neo-cons branding american troops that fled to canada and refused to take part in the iraq invasion as "un-american" or "cowardly". Not all conservatives are this closed minded of course, i'm thinking more along the lines of anne coulter and mike savage

2007-01-16 14:31:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

there have always been conscientious objectors to wars.

when there is a majority of the 130,000 there who say they are against it, let me know. so far all I've seen is about 10 of them.

and no i wouldn't call them unamerican, i'd call them doing their duty. if there were enough of them who thought that way i'd have to say that they are the ones there and they are the ones who know what's happening.

2007-01-16 14:27:00 · answer #11 · answered by political junkie 4 · 5 1

fedest.com, questions and answers