Republican party in uniform ?

#1
What a strange setup the yanks have, allowing a general to give speeches saying how wonderful the Republican party is, and then promoting him.
Funny how they are so keen on allowing Republican types to get their message across on their armed forces radio etc.
So like the USSR, the yank military does not bother to be neutral when it comes to politics.
Wonder what will happen if it seems Obama is about to win the election http://harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001082
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14262-2004Aug19.html
 
#3
ronnie12398 said:
Harper's and The Washington Post. Not exactly impeccable sources.
Fair enough. Are you disputing the claim?

If so, do you have more reliable links/sources?
 
#4
Yes, I'm disputing the claim that the US Armed Forces are the "Republican Party in uniform" because it hasn't been proven in either of these articles.


You want a source to disprove a conspiracy theory?
 
#5
ronnie12398 said:
Yes, I'm disputing the claim that the US Armed Forces are the "Republican Party in uniform" because it hasn't been proven in either of these articles.


You want a source to disprove a conspiracy theory?
Not really. Just a better argument would do. To people (maybe just me) on this side of the pond the US military appears more political than the British equivalent. That is admittedly a purely subjective claim and I could well be wrong.

But just from my POV the forces in the USA do seem republican both in deed (the British army is conservative by the same standards) but also in word. There does appear to be connection between the Bush administration and the high ranking USA military chiefs.

What do you think/say?
 
#6
Perturbed said:
ronnie12398 said:
Yes, I'm disputing the claim that the US Armed Forces are the "Republican Party in uniform" because it hasn't been proven in either of these articles.


You want a source to disprove a conspiracy theory?
Not really. Just a better argument would do. To people (maybe just me) on this side of the pond the US military appears more political than the British equivalent. That is admittedly a purely subjective claim and I could well be wrong.

But just from my POV the forces in the USA do seem republican both in deed (the British army is conservative by the same standards) but also in word. There does appear to be connection between the Bush administration and the high ranking USA military chiefs.

What do you think/say?
I'd say that you are stereo-typing based on your own bias.

Speaking of conspiracy theories:

"There does appear to be connection between the Bush administration and the high ranking USA military chiefs".

Why, because they follow orders?
 
#7
Perturbed said:
There does appear to be connection between the Bush administration and the high ranking USA military chiefs.

What do you think/say?
Well, that could be because the president appoints some of them, and they all must work with the president on a regular basis

It's true that many in the US military are republicans (as Republicans are more likely to favor maintaining a strong military than most Democrats), but like the article says, you try not to do that in uniform. There are strict rules against campaigning for candidates of any stripes in uniform, or saying something like "I'm Captain Smith, United States Army, and I endorse such and such for president".

There are plenty of Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents who serve in the US military
 
#8
Oh, there are rules for Democrats but not for Republicans ?
So two questions, why was a General allowed to go to churchs in uniform saying that Bush was sent by God ?

Why is that hero who could not be called up because he had a pimple on his arse, on your armed forces radio ?

Is that what the US military call being even handed and totally neutral in grubby politics ?
Or, is that the norm if one has a politician as head of state ?
 
#9
tehori said:
Oh, there are rules for Democrats but not for Republicans ?
So two questions, why was a General allowed to go to churchs in uniform saying that Bush was sent by God ?

Why is that hero who could not be called up because he had a pimple on his arse, on your armed forces radio ?

Is that what the US military call being even handed and totally neutral in grubby politics ?
Or, is that the norm if one has a politician as head of state ?
Those stories you posted are four years old. This general is retired now. I don't think this general should have been allowed to do or say what he did. He seems to have gotten away with some strange things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin

The President of the United States is also Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
 
#10
Is simple really; those that join the US armed forces do so, contrary to the news media and others, to serve their country and swear an oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution.

The US Constitution is the foundation of Freedom.

The left leaning, sometimes marxist and stalinist, democrats have no use for freedom, or the US Constitution and are far less likely to subscribe to and organisation that it sworn to uphold what they reveil.

So yes there are more right leaning people in the US Armed forces. Are they all republicans...no met plenty of good minded Dems whilst in but they were all further right then the Dem party leadership is today.
 
#11
tehori said:
Oh, there are rules for Democrats but not for Republicans ?
So two questions, why was a General allowed to go to churchs in uniform saying that Bush was sent by God ?

Why is that hero who could not be called up because he had a pimple on his arse, on your armed forces radio ?

Is that what the US military call being even handed and totally neutral in grubby politics ?
Or, is that the norm if one has a politician as head of state ?
No, the rules apply to everyone, at no point did I say Republicans were exempt for any reason. And for the record, I'm not a Republican.
 
#12
tehori said:
Oh, there are rules for Democrats but not for Republicans ?
So two questions, why was a General allowed to go to churchs in uniform saying that Bush was sent by God ?

Why is that hero who could not be called up because he had a pimple on his arse, on your armed forces radio ?

Is that what the US military call being even handed and totally neutral in grubby politics ?
Or, is that the norm if one has a politician as head of state ?
As I recall,The US Commander in the Invasion of Haiti in 1994 said they were there to "Oppose Satan".I tried to look this up in the GENFORCE handbook but met with no success :?
 
#13
firestarter said:
tehori said:
Oh, there are rules for Democrats but not for Republicans ?
So two questions, why was a General allowed to go to churchs in uniform saying that Bush was sent by God ?

Why is that hero who could not be called up because he had a pimple on his arse, on your armed forces radio ?

Is that what the US military call being even handed and totally neutral in grubby politics ?
Or, is that the norm if one has a politician as head of state ?
As I recall,The US Commander in the Invasion of Haiti in 1994 said they were there to "Oppose Satan".I tried to look this up in the GENFORCE handbook but met with no success :?
A commander, not the commander if your talking about who I think you are (and if it is, a serious nutter)
 
#14
Chief_Joseph said:
firestarter said:
tehori said:
Oh, there are rules for Democrats but not for Republicans ?
So two questions, why was a General allowed to go to churchs in uniform saying that Bush was sent by God ?

Why is that hero who could not be called up because he had a pimple on his arse, on your armed forces radio ?

Is that what the US military call being even handed and totally neutral in grubby politics ?
Or, is that the norm if one has a politician as head of state ?
As I recall,The US Commander in the Invasion of Haiti in 1994 said they were there to "Oppose Satan".I tried to look this up in the GENFORCE handbook but met with no success :?
A commander, not the commander if your talking about who I think you are (and if it is, a serious nutter)
Do tell,I can't find any reference ,but I know I read this (PM me if you wish)
 
#15
ctauch said:
Is simple really; those that join the US armed forces do so, contrary to the news media and others, to serve their country and swear an oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution.

The US Constitution is the foundation of Freedom.

The left leaning, sometimes marxist and stalinist, democrats have no use for freedom, or the US Constitution and are far less likely to subscribe to and organisation that it sworn to uphold what they revile.

So yes there are more right leaning people in the US Armed forces. Are they all republicans...no met plenty of good minded Dems whilst in but they were all further right then the Dem party leadership is today.
Ooh, ctauch! You're really demonstrating your bias/other-worldliness/stupidity here, mucker!

The first part of your post I've emboldened should actually see the whole Septic Army descending on Washington to slot Bush the Bewildered, Darth Cheney and all the rest of the slimy fückers, if this oath is really taken seriously.

The second emboldenment in your post strongly reminds me of Bush the Bewildered with his: "They hate our freedoms" (simply because it was entirely unreasonable to expect him to remember anything more complicated), and then proceeding to comprehensively dismantle those very freedoms. So is he in league with the baddies?

MsG
 
#16
Bugsy said:
ctauch said:
Is simple really; those that join the US armed forces do so, contrary to the news media and others, to serve their country and swear an oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution.

The US Constitution is the foundation of Freedom.

The left leaning, sometimes marxist and stalinist, democrats have no use for freedom, or the US Constitution and are far less likely to subscribe to and organisation that it sworn to uphold what they revile.

So yes there are more right leaning people in the US Armed forces. Are they all republicans...no met plenty of good minded Dems whilst in but they were all further right then the Dem party leadership is today.
Ooh, ctauch! You're really demonstrating your bias/other-worldliness/stupidity here, mucker!

The first part of your post I've emboldened should actually see the whole Septic Army descending on Washington to slot Bush the Bewildered, Darth Cheney and all the rest of the slimy fückers, if this oath is really taken seriously.

The second emboldenment in your post strongly reminds me of Bush the Bewildered with his: "They hate our freedoms" (simply because it was entirely unreasonable to expect him to remember anything more complicated), and then proceeding to comprehensively dismantle those very freedoms. So is he in league with the baddies?

MsG
Oh do tell what constitutionally protected freedoms Bush and Chenney have striped the US of. Oh please inform this "stupid mucker" what they are....
 
#17
I think the original point Tehori was attempting to make is that Church and State ought to be kept relatively separate, especially when it comes to military. He asks what will happen should a Democrat win the White House-and the question is a valid one; that might well create an unfortunate rift between elements of the Armed Forces and the Executive, not, evidently, a good thing. Furthermore one must be a little wary of those in authority who claim that the war they are fighting is divinely inspired-what then when policies change and what confidence can both his political masters (and the public) and those in command beneath him have in a man who claims there is a spritual army that will aid the US?

I remain skeptical, but chaps, can we avoid the standard Yank bashing and also the internecine bickering between Republicans and Democrats please-it's very dull.
 
#18
ctauch said:
[
Oh do tell what constitutionally protected freedoms Bush and Chenney have striped the US of. Oh please inform this "stupid mucker" what they are....
Aah, ctauch. Bless yer little Septic cotton Blackpool rocks! You'll notice that I provided three alternatives, i.e. "biased", "other-worldly" and "stupid". You decided to pick up on "stupid". How very revealing.

So, since you need an Irishman to help you in your quest to find the missing elements of the Septic Constitution, here they are:

Freedom of speech. Nobody with even a breath of suspicion of not fully supporting the neo-con ideals is allowed anywhere near Genghis Bush of Darth Cheney. Any DC-accredited journos are immediately banished if they dare to publish one word disagreeing with the Cheney agenda. I say the "Cheney agenda" because Genghis Bush has never had a say in matters. He was only the (marginally) popular, gormless dork who ensured that Darth Cheney got on his ticket as vice- (and how very fitting a word that is for the geezer) president.

Habeas corpus. This ancient, democratic right has been effectively abolished so that Darth Cheney (through Genghis Bush) can accuse anybody he wants of anything he wants and be sure that such persons are incarcerated without trial. Padilla springs to mind in this context: a man who was later "convicted" of crimes for which he wasn't even originally arrested. How many others have been quietly "disappeared" by the unholy Cheney/Bush alliance is not known.

The 4th Amendment. The "circumvention" (tantamount to removal) of which effectively nullifies one of the most basic legal rights; the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Now practically everybody is guilty until they can prove their innocence - often with the barest minimum of legal aid.

Those are just for starters, for I don't want to overtax you. However, don't worry, ctauch, all this is happening in one form or another in just about every Western society, as the cowardly, corrupted, greedy politicians act out the chance grasped by their masters to further reduce the annoying, irritating call of the masses for more humanity in society.

MsG
 
#19
Bugsy said:
Freedom of speech. Nobody with even a breath of suspicion of not fully supporting the neo-con ideals is allowed anywhere near Genghis Bush of Darth Cheney. Any DC-accredited journos are immediately banished if they dare to publish one word disagreeing with the Cheney agenda. I say the "Cheney agenda" because Genghis Bush has never had a say in matters. He was only the (marginally) popular, gormless dork who ensured that Darth Cheney got on his ticket as vice- (and how very fitting a word that is for the geezer) president.
And that all violates Freedom of Speech how. There is no "right" enumerated that grants any reporter to have unfethered access to the president or compells any president to meet with any reporters.

Not sure where your evidence is that reporters are banished if they disagree with the administration, as I have seen plenty of press briefings where the WH press corps was down right rude and disrespectful and those same "reporters" were back for the next press briefing. David Gregory and Helen Thomas come to mind.

Not to mention CNN, NBC and MSNBC, are still on the air and still attacking Bush every chance they get, whether the reports are based in fact or just opinion.

As for the rest of your rambling dribble, really has nothing to do with Freedom of speech now does it.

Bugsy said:
Habeas corpus. This ancient, democratic right has been effectively abolished so that Darth Cheney (through Genghis Bush) can accuse anybody he wants of anything he wants and be sure that such persons are incarcerated without trial. Padilla springs to mind in this context: a man who was later "convicted" of crimes for which he wasn't even originally arrested. How many others have been quietly "disappeared" by the unholy Cheney/Bush alliance is not known.
Actually Padilla was afforded all rights and protections. He had full access, even while in military custody, to the State and Federal Court systems. Some of the appeals and rulings went against him and some for him. BTW his original detention was as a material witness based on a warrant out of the State of New York.

I have followed this case, and to be honest it appears the system worked, although slowly, but then when have the wheels of justice ever moved fast especially when a lawyer charges by the hour.

Outside of the Padilla case I haven't heard of any others where US citizens are snatched from city streets and scurried away to military installations to never see the light of day again, which to be honest didn't even happen in that case.

Bugsy said:
The 4th Amendment. The "circumvention" (tantamount to removal) of which effectively nullifies one of the most basic legal rights; the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Now practically everybody is guilty until they can prove their innocence - often with the barest minimum of legal aid.
The fourth amendment deals with search and seizure. Warrants are still required and must be issued prior to any search and seizure taking place. I haven't seen or heard of any suspension or repeal of the fourth amendment.

Are you maybe confusing the activities at Gitmo with somehow deminishing Constitutional protections of legal US citizens residing in the 50 states?

Aside from refering to Bush and Chenney in derogatory terms, you have done nothing to provide any proof of an errosion of constitutional protections in the US due to Bush and Chenney.

And in light of the fact that you single out Bush and Chenney as being able to single-handedly do everything you are accusing them of, shows your complete and utter ignorance of the US system of government.

Oh BTW Obama mentioned in his Berlin speech that
Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast...
Did something extrodinary take place that the rest of the world missed, a friend of mine was just in Belfast on business and remarked on the fact that the "ethnic peacelines" are still standing.
 
#20
Right...and what relevance does that have to the topic? Other than the fact that you disagree with each other?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top