Benghazi - Massive Coverup

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Community Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby 2dimes on Tue May 14, 2013 9:30 am

Ok you two, that's enough of that. "But if the troops are blind how will they aim their weapons?"
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 3928
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Just out for a rip!
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)

Re: Re:

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue May 14, 2013 11:39 am

fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.

What about the president ordering the extrajudicial killing of that American citizen? Wasn't that illegal?

I certainly can't do it--even if I can demonstrate that the victim was telling others to kill 'my people' (i.e. my family).


Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Re:

Postby Woodruff on Tue May 14, 2013 12:04 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.


The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.

But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.

So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.

The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Re:

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue May 14, 2013 3:03 pm

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.


The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.

But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.

So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.


Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs? :P

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.

The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.


That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.

It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.

It's weird. If a company indirectly kills people (e.g. a chemical spill), and even though it's been paying billions for years to workers' salaries and into the local markets, people nevertheless become enraged (and rightly so). The company usually is held to some degree culpable. But, when such words like "government" or "national security" become involved, and when the government steps into that vague area beyond the Law and kills many innocent civilians, then what? Where's the outrage? Where's the distrust? Where's the serious pursuit of justice within the government?

The dissociation with government intervention is amazing. It also goes back to the electorate. Many of them supported a war in Iraq, voted (ir)responsibly, and none were held culpable for their actions. Whether or not they should, is another matter, but if one can easily ignore/avoid the costs of one's decisions, then the possibility of attaining good outcomes (for more than oneself and friends) seems miniscule.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Re:

Postby Woodruff on Tue May 14, 2013 5:26 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.


The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.

But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.

So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.


Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs? :P


No, not really. Again, we do receive training on things like the Geneva Convention and similar other directives regarding the "rules of war", so there really is no excuse for violating them.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.

The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.


That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.


No, in all sincerity, it is not the higher leadership of the military that is typically the problem. Almost universally, it is an individual in a lower command position that creates the messes. It really isn't the problem you seem to be implying it is.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.


Ok, but that's not a situation of disobeying an unlawful military order.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's weird. If a company indirectly kills people (e.g. a chemical spill), and even though it's been paying billions for years to workers' salaries and into the local markets, people nevertheless become enraged (and rightly so). The company usually is held to some degree culpable. But, when such words like "government" or "national security" become involved, and when the government steps into that vague area beyond the Law and kills many innocent civilians, then what? Where's the outrage? Where's the distrust? Where's the serious pursuit of justice within the government?


I don't disagree with you here at all. In fact, I very much agree. But I'm not sure what you're driving at, as far as this aspect of the conversation.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The dissociation with government intervention is amazing. It also goes back to the electorate. Many of them supported a war in Iraq, voted (ir)responsibly, and none were held culpable for their actions. Whether or not they should, is another matter, but if one can easily ignore/avoid the costs of one's decisions, then the possibility of attaining good outcomes (for more than oneself and friends) seems miniscule.


Are we talking about something different now?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Postby 2dimes on Tue May 14, 2013 7:56 pm

Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...[/quote]
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed.
Nothing to add I just felt like quoting this huge thing and writing in the middle of it.
As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said

Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true. [/quote]

The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.

But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.

So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.[/quote]

Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs? :P[/quote]

No, not really. Again, we do receive training on things like the Geneva Convention and similar other directives regarding the "rules of war", so there really is no excuse for violating them.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.

The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.


That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.


No, in all sincerity, it is not the higher leadership of the military that is typically the problem. Almost universally, it is an individual in a lower command position that creates the messes. It really isn't the problem you seem to be implying it is.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.


Ok, but that's not a situation of disobeying an unlawful military order.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's weird. If a company indirectly kills people (e.g. a chemical spill), and even though it's been paying billions for years to workers' salaries and into the local markets, people nevertheless become enraged (and rightly so). The company usually is held to some degree culpable. But, when such words like "government" or "national security" become involved, and when the government steps into that vague area beyond the Law and kills many innocent civilians, then what? Where's the outrage? Where's the distrust? Where's the serious pursuit of justice within the government?


I don't disagree with you here at all. In fact, I very much agree. But I'm not sure what you're driving at, as far as this aspect of the conversation.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The dissociation with government intervention is amazing. It also goes back to the electorate. Many of them supported a war in Iraq, voted (ir)responsibly, and none were held culpable for their actions. Whether or not they should, is another matter, but if one can easily ignore/avoid the costs of one's decisions, then the possibility of attaining good outcomes (for more than oneself and friends) seems miniscule.


Are we talking about something different now?
Last edited by 2dimes on Tue May 14, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 3928
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Just out for a rip!
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)

Re: Re:

Postby Symmetry on Tue May 14, 2013 7:59 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.

What about the president ordering the extrajudicial killing of that American citizen? Wasn't that illegal?

I certainly can't do it--even if I can demonstrate that the victim was telling others to kill 'my people' (i.e. my family).


Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Plus the drones.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Re:

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed May 15, 2013 2:06 am

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.


The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.

But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.

So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.


Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs? :P


No, not really. Again, we do receive training on things like the Geneva Convention and similar other directives regarding the "rules of war", so there really is no excuse for violating them.


I really don't see how a grunt would possess enough knowledge of military law and the Law of the USG in order to even know if their superiors are doing something wrong. I don't see how the incentive structure of "doing what you're told" + limited knowledge of the law and higher-up information would create an environment where the soldier would consistently 'do the right thing'.

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.

The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.


That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.


No, in all sincerity, it is not the higher leadership of the military that is typically the problem. Almost universally, it is an individual in a lower command position that creates the messes. It really isn't the problem you seem to be implying it is.


Really? The Bush adminstration pursued a war in Iraq because some lowly analyst in the National Reconnaissance Office (or whatever) misinterpreted a pile of rubbish as WMDs? I really don't find that convincing--especially if there's conflicting reports and for some odd reason the administration keeps harping on the rubbish 'intelligence'.

That's the degree of the mess I'm talking about, so maybe that would clear the misunderstanding here. Stuff like drone strikes, GITMO, Bagram, torturing, etc. These are executive-level decisions, which the executives are not later held accountable for. That's the problem I'm talking about here (to be clear).


Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.


Ok, but that's not a situation of disobeying an unlawful military order.


Maybe that's the problem. It's not illegal to go to war on faulty intelligence and not be held accountable for the costs. I bet plenty of politicians would vote for that kind of law...

Then again, all kinds of illegal wiretapping were conducted--but (right, that's not about military personnel). Actions like that get on my nerves anyway. Government officials can commit crimes with little repercussion, yet non-government actors usually experience greater consequences--even for minor crimes (possessing a gram of weed, or yelling at an officer).

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's weird. If a company indirectly kills people (e.g. a chemical spill), and even though it's been paying billions for years to workers' salaries and into the local markets, people nevertheless become enraged (and rightly so). The company usually is held to some degree culpable. But, when such words like "government" or "national security" become involved, and when the government steps into that vague area beyond the Law and kills many innocent civilians, then what? Where's the outrage? Where's the distrust? Where's the serious pursuit of justice within the government?


I don't disagree with you here at all. In fact, I very much agree. But I'm not sure what you're driving at, as far as this aspect of the conversation.

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The dissociation with government intervention is amazing. It also goes back to the electorate. Many of them supported a war in Iraq, voted (ir)responsibly, and none were held culpable for their actions. Whether or not they should, is another matter, but if one can easily ignore/avoid the costs of one's decisions, then the possibility of attaining good outcomes (for more than oneself and friends) seems miniscule.


Are we talking about something different now?



Well, this is me going on about the incentives faced by the electorate on deciding on matters of US foreign policy. I wonder why we get into such crap, and it shouldn't be too surprising. Just a tangent.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Re:

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed May 15, 2013 2:10 am

Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.

What about the president ordering the extrajudicial killing of that American citizen? Wasn't that illegal?

I certainly can't do it--even if I can demonstrate that the victim was telling others to kill 'my people' (i.e. my family).


Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Plus the drones.


C'mon, Sym. Drones are totes legal. It's for national security. Don't you want to be safe?
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4369
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Re:

Postby Woodruff on Wed May 15, 2013 3:58 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.

But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.

So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.


Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs? :P


No, not really. Again, we do receive training on things like the Geneva Convention and similar other directives regarding the "rules of war", so there really is no excuse for violating them.


I really don't see how a grunt would possess enough knowledge of military law and the Law of the USG in order to even know if their superiors are doing something wrong.


They don't need to know if their superiors are doing something wrong. Although many times they DO know, in my experience. And I think you're underestimating the average grunt. Again, we receive regular training in these things.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't see how the incentive structure of "doing what you're told" + limited knowledge of the law and higher-up information would create an environment where the soldier would consistently 'do the right thing'.


It's called integrity, and members of the military are expected to hold it as a high standard.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.

The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.


That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.


No, in all sincerity, it is not the higher leadership of the military that is typically the problem. Almost universally, it is an individual in a lower command position that creates the messes. It really isn't the problem you seem to be implying it is.


Really? The Bush adminstration pursued a war in Iraq because some lowly analyst in the National Reconnaissance Office (or whatever) misinterpreted a pile of rubbish as WMDs? I really don't find that convincing--especially if there's conflicting reports and for some odd reason the administration keeps harping on the rubbish 'intelligence'.


The reason that doesn't sound convincing is probably because that's nowhere near what I said. In fact, it's almost the opposite of what I said. "Lower command position" does not at all equate to "some lowly analyst" (which would be more in line with the "grunt" you mentioned previously). "Lower command position" would be an officer, probably somewhere in the Captain-Lt Col range.

BigBallinStalin wrote:That's the degree of the mess I'm talking about, so maybe that would clear the misunderstanding here. Stuff like drone strikes, GITMO, Bagram, torturing, etc. These are executive-level decisions, which the executives are not later held accountable for. That's the problem I'm talking about here (to be clear).


And yet, GITMO, Bagram, drone strikes and the like are situations where individuals have acted without integrity and by following orders that were unlawful (caveat, most drone strikes would not be considered unlawful orders).

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.


Ok, but that's not a situation of disobeying an unlawful military order.


Maybe that's the problem. It's not illegal to go to war on faulty intelligence and not be held accountable for the costs. I bet plenty of politicians would vote for that kind of law.


I'm not at all convinced that the US went to war on "faulty intelligence". I think the decision was made to go to war, and the "intelligence" was manufactured to support that decision. When something like that happens, that really has nothing at all to do with military members acting legally or illegally, because it is impossible for the military member to know what the intelligence contained unless they were directly involved in creating it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Re:

Postby Woodruff on Wed May 15, 2013 4:03 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...

it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions private
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.

yeah, what he said


Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.

What about the president ordering the extrajudicial killing of that American citizen? Wasn't that illegal?

I certainly can't do it--even if I can demonstrate that the victim was telling others to kill 'my people' (i.e. my family).

Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?


Plus the drones.


C'mon, Sym. Drones are totes legal. It's for national security. Don't you want to be safe?


Are drones illegal?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Re:

Postby fadedpsychosis on Wed May 15, 2013 4:18 am

people wrote:*lots of words said*

because I'm being lazy with limited time I'm not going to nitpick like I normally do...
BBS: you're mixing up who did what I think... as Woody said, the intelligence wasn't the reason we went to war, it was the excuse to do so... THAT did come down from the top, not the other way around. The Gitmo incident was done from the lower levels: grunts being endorsed in illegal activity by their immediate chain of command (which actually pulled down a lot of higher ups who didn't really know what was going on because they SHOULD have known and squashed it immediately) there is unfortunately no single point of failure in all of what's happened lately... there's no convenient scapegoat. A lot of bad has happened because military members followed perfectly legal orders, but the reasons behind those orders may or may not have been shady... and more bad has happened because of members conducting illegal activity and those both above and below turned a blind eye
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
User avatar
Private fadedpsychosis
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: global

Postby 2dimes on Wed May 15, 2013 10:24 am

Now correct me if I'm wrong here. I have read many claims that the reason an American did not go in and assassinate Saddam was they could not legally give that order.

Later the law was changed specifically to allow them to give the order, then they did. A year or so ago Maxim magazine, did a highly over looked article on the remorse the guy who killed Bin Laden has felt, after trying to get on with life, being quietly discharged not wanting to be known, because he was just doing a job.

With Muammar they managed to get some locals filled up enough to do the task. Who knows what those guys feel because they're unknown desert dwellers.

In the absence of locals willing to assassinate the perceived bady, a drone would be nice and impersonal.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 3928
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Just out for a rip!
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)

Re: Benghazi

Postby Phatscotty on Wed May 15, 2013 4:45 pm

Obama will be impeached. Maybe he can survive it, but that won't matter.

It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!

Can't change history, or the lies the Obama administration has been telling.

Official White House statement, 4 days after terrorist attack in Benghazi
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Colonel Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 91
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (13)

Re: Benghazi

Postby ooge on Wed May 15, 2013 6:34 pm

life long republican and previous Defense secretary Bob Gates stated those looking into this "scandal" have a cartoonish view on what the US military is capable of.
Image
User avatar
Major ooge
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge
Medals: 93
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (12) Clan Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (6)

Re: Benghazi

Postby Woodruff on Wed May 15, 2013 6:57 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Obama will be impeached.


And Romney will win the White House. And Obamacare will not be passed. Traditional marriage will not be circumvented.
Do you ever get embarrassed by your lack of predictive success?

Phatscotty wrote:It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!


Your absolute glee in making this statement tells me that you really aren't a very patriotic individual at all, despite your rhetoric.

ooge wrote:life long republican and previous Defense secretary Bob Gates stated those looking into this "scandal" have a cartoonish view on what the US military is capable of.


Oh, what does he know? He's clearly just a socialist communist gun-banning homosexual. Probably a Muslim Kenyan too. I heard he wanted to run the Department of Education instead of the Department of Defense.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Benghazi

Postby warmonger1981 on Thu May 16, 2013 12:07 am

I hear on the streets the CIA is having an internal fight and something to do with weapons smuggling. Anyone else hear anything like that?
User avatar
Lieutenant warmonger1981
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (12)

Re: Benghazi

Postby ooge on Thu May 16, 2013 5:40 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:I hear on the streets the CIA is having an internal fight and something to do with weapons smuggling. Anyone else hear anything like that?


no,but the CIA is out of control,I would not be surprised by anything they are accused of doing at this point.They need oversight,it wont happen though.The flag wavers will come out and say your siding with the terrorists if someone attempted oversight.
Image
User avatar
Major ooge
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge
Medals: 93
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (12) Clan Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (6)

Re: Benghazi

Postby Phatscotty on Thu May 16, 2013 9:47 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:I hear on the streets the CIA is having an internal fight and something to do with weapons smuggling. Anyone else hear anything like that?


warmer

Obama is in deeper than Oliver North
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Colonel Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 91
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (13)

Re: Benghazi

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu May 16, 2013 11:19 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:I hear on the streets the CIA is having an internal fight and something to do with weapons smuggling. Anyone else hear anything like that?

What streets are you walking on, where people are talking about CIA stuff? Do you hang out at the corner of CIA Street and Wiretap Avenue?


--Andy
User avatar
Sergeant AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25469
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Benghazi

Postby warmonger1981 on Thu May 16, 2013 11:40 pm

SKID ROW with Sebastian Back. 18 baby
User avatar
Lieutenant warmonger1981
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (12)

Re: Benghazi

Postby warmonger1981 on Fri May 17, 2013 12:18 am

www.dailymail.co.uk-------under headlines---- " 'Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this': Emails show the then CIA-chief David Petraeus objected to Obama administration's version of Benghazi terror attack events

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2TW9lDsiL
By JAMES NYE
PUBLISHED: 18:34 EST, 15 May 2013 | UPDATED: 10:37 EST, 16 May 2013
User avatar
Lieutenant warmonger1981
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (12)

Re: Benghazi

Postby Symmetry on Fri May 17, 2013 4:44 am

warmonger1981 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk-------under headlines---- " 'Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this': Emails show the then CIA-chief David Petraeus objected to Obama administration's version of Benghazi terror attack events

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2TW9lDsiL
By JAMES NYE
PUBLISHED: 18:34 EST, 15 May 2013 | UPDATED: 10:37 EST, 16 May 2013


User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Benghazi

Postby thegreekdog on Fri May 17, 2013 7:32 am

Phatscotty wrote:Obama will be impeached. Maybe he can survive it, but that won't matter.

It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!

Can't change history, or the lies the Obama administration has been telling.

Official White House statement, 4 days after terrorist attack in Benghazi


It didn't take you very long (like, what? 5 days) to prove Ron Paul's point about the Republicans. Which is, again (how many times is that now - 50?) why you aren't really a Ron Paul supporter, you just pretend you are.

Ron Paul wrote:However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Benghazi

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri May 17, 2013 5:06 pm

And to add to that;

Republicans Outed as the Source Of ABC’s Deliberately Edited Benghazi Emails

Ron Paul's right, and the poor guy has been Teddy Roosevelted into staying in the Republican Party. I don't really believe he identifies any of his own beliefs with those of his party's, but to go on his own means he will never rise higher in politics than he is today.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nesterdude

Login