Opinion Hegseth to U.S. generals: "Prepare for war."

[Rational Poster]

It is clearly written in plain text lmfao

And you clearly cannot actually interpret that plain text honestly or accurately.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

Also
I take back what I said about @GreatSaintGuillotine

He is a Marine, and I still have love for him even though he’s stupid

Well you're halfway there. I'll take it.

Agree or disagree, I have nothing but love for sailors. Especially those who worked in aviation. Even the ones who needed asvab waivers

 

[Shaun K]

Well you're halfway there. I'll take it.

Agree or disagree, I have nothing but love for sailors. Especially those who worked in aviation. Even the ones who needed asvab waivers

All jobs were open to me except nuke. Only waivers I needed were for poorly done Kanji tatoos filled with regret

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

All jobs were open to me except nuke. Only waivers I needed were for poorly done Kanji tatoos filled with regret

Same, minus the ink. I was a blank canvas up until recently.

 

[Shaun K]

And you clearly cannot actually interpret that plain text honestly or accurately.

You’re flat out delusional lol
It clearly says nothing about the office, it says “obey the orders of the president”. Zero room for interpretation. Even if you google the UCMJ, and try to find holes there-there arent any. Its full proof. Its even backed by general orders unique to branch of service


This comes from some weak ass argument you heard somewhere regarding the officers oath, which does have wiggle room for interpretation-but any arguments have been shot the fuck down and set precedent.

Just go on about your day lol

 

[44nutman]

So according to Whiskey Pete if you are a fatty fat fat fuck you can’t lead. Does that count for everyone because I am asking for an 80 year old man who is such a fatty fat fat fuck he has swollen ankles which leads to having a limp dick.
Actually Whiskey Pete is right fatties are not good leaders. Obama and Biden skinny and in shape, Trump fat, hand bruises gases on stairs and has fatty ankles. Don’t let facts hurt your feelings.

 

[Thrawn33]

Easier said then done at 50+ with a fuck ton of injuries.

Standards are standards and need to be met but there still needs to be nuance. The more black and white you try to make things, the more they fall apart in practice.

At the senior command level you need to be within standards but the priority is always on your ability to do your job. I dont expect my MSgt to keep up with me during pt. I expect him to keep our section in order

In the Coast Guard COs/and Officers in charge of boat or helicopter units are required to maintain certification on the units assets, to include the boat crew/air crew physical fitness test. So yes that meant the full bird CO of the last Air Sta I was co-located with be doing his pt test just like me as the enlisted officer in charge of a boat forces unit.

I had to do my bi-annual pt test to maintain my boat crew certifications this past June as a 40something E8 OIC (with alll the damage of 23 years on ships and boats), just to remain current until my Change of Command early Aug when I started terminal leave.

 

[Phisher]

The majority of right wingers are just pretending this isn’t happening.

Wild.

That's the end result of all of the dehumanizing rhetoric that they've been using against people who live in those places for decades.

I think that half of them would cheer on military personnel opening fire on citizens so long as it's someone that they wouldn't want walking through their neighborhood.

 

[Blayt7hh]

You are attempting to grade my post based on your writing style. Sit down, shut the fuck up, and get a towel under that pussy.



“The use of the word “proper” in the phrase “proper written sentence” is not wrong because it is grammatically correct and conveys a clear meaning. Here’s why:


1. Definition of “Proper”: The word “proper” means correct, appropriate, or suitable. In the context of a “proper written sentence,” it implies a sentence that is correctly or appropriately written, adhering to grammatical rules or intended standards.


2. Grammatical Validity: “Proper” is an adjective that appropriately modifies the noun phrase “written sentence.” The structure follows standard English syntax: an adjective (“proper”) describing a noun (“sentence”) that is further qualified by a past participle (“written”). There’s no violation of grammar rules here.


3. Understandability: The phrase is easily understood by native speakers. It communicates that the sentence in question meets a standard of correctness or appropriateness, such as proper grammar, spelling, or style.”

Yeah I didn’t read any of this. You know why? Because you already accidentally admitted you didn’t realize there was a difference. They aren’t interchangeable words. So shut up and quit being a little bitch

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

You are an insufferable dingbat.

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”


Told you that you wouldnt understand.

Clearly you do not understand even what you've copy pasted.

The oath of loyalty is to the constitution. The oath of obedience is to the office, not the President as a person, and is also an oath to disobey unlawful orders that conflict with their oath to the defend the constitution.

It is clearly written in plain text lmfao

What direct orders has he given that were deemed unlawful? I’ll wait.

Some law is written vaguely to be open to interpretation, this is blatantly very cut and dry. There is no room for interpretation here

You're both correct and both wrong. The nuance of the Oath is tricky when put into practice because, yes you are obligated to defy all non lawful orders (including from the president) but determining what is and isn't not lawful in the moment can be complicated. And disobeying a direct order can still yield immediate consequences. A Jag would have to later determine if you were justified and reverse any potential punishments.

Obviously, POTUS can't say "deploy to New Orleans and clear out crime by force". That is clearly unlawful. But, as he has demonstrated, he can toe that line in certain cases. That's where the nuance comes into play.

 

[oldshadow]

I don't think firing good generals because they don't meet Hegseth's arbitrary aesthetic desires for their appearance is what's going to make other countries fear us.

If anything getting rid of good talent over something as silly as their appearance is going to make us look even more of a joke to them.

If they are not disaplened enough to meet minimum standards then they make piss poor leaders.

 

[Shaun K]

You're both correct and both wrong. The nuance of the Oath is tricky when put into practice because, yes you are obligated to defy all non lawful orders (including from the president) but determining what is and isn't not lawful in the moment can be complicated. And disobeying a direct order can still yield immediate consequences. A Jag would have to later determine if you were justified and reverse any potential punishments.

Obviously, POTUS can't say "deploy to New Orleans and clear out crime by force". That is clearly unlawful. But, as he has demonstrated, he can toe that line in certain cases. That's where the nuance comes into play.

Its not unlawful tho, because it says both foreign and domestic. It can be deemed unlawful later, but if you disobey your ass it getting hemmed up. When the POTUS gives orders, there isnt time for them to be interpreted in courts. Its in stone. Im not wrong at all, enlisted are under direction of the president.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

In the Coast Guard COs/and Officers in charge of boat and helicopter units are expected to maintain certification on the units assets, to include the boat crew/air crew physical fitness test. So yes that meant the full bird CO of the last Air Sta I was co-located with be doing his pt test just like me as the enlisted officer in charge of a boat forces unit.

I had to do my bi-annual pt test to maintain my boat crew certifications this past June as a 40something E8 OIC (with alll the damage of 23 years on ships and boats), just to remain current until my Change of Command early Aug when I started terminal leave.

I run my OIC's and SgtMaj's fitness tests every year. I make them earn that shit. Do not misunderstand. EVERYONE must be fit and meet standards. But that can and should look different for everyone.

I'm not pressed about 48 year olds hitting sub 20 on their 3 mile. I'm more concerned with them passing as high within their capabilities as possible while avoiding injuries.

 

[Rational Poster]

If they are not disaplened enough to meet minimum standards then they make piss poor leaders.

That's just not true at all.

 

[Shaun K]

Yeah I didn’t read any of this. You know why? Because you already accidentally admitted you didn’t realize there was a difference. They aren’t interchangeable words. So shut up and quit being a little bitch

You read it lol

 

[Shaun K]

That's just not true at all.

Just like the oath to the president?

 

[Rational Poster]

You're both correct and both wrong. The nuance of the Oath is tricky when put into practice because, yes you are obligated to defy all non lawful orders (including from the president) but determining what is and isn't not lawful in the moment can be complicated. And disobeying a direct order can still yield immediate consequences. A Jag would have to later determine if you were justified and reverse any potential punishments.

Obviously, POTUS can't say "deploy to New Orleans and clear out crime by force". That is clearly unlawful. But, as he has demonstrated, he can toe that line in certain cases. That's where the nuance comes into play.

I mean I don't think it's that complicated. The oath is to the constitution and the office, not the person in the office.

Even Scalia has talked about this.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

Its not unlawful tho, because it says both foreign and domestic. When the POTUS gives orders, there isnt time for them to be interpreted in courts. Its in stone. Im not wrong at all, enlisted are under direction of the president.

It is unlawful unless under very specific circumstances that are properly outlined in the UCMJ and other legal documentation. President does not have absolute authority. He is still subject to the laws and limitations placed upon the executive branch. He can't say deploy military against the civilian population UNLESS very specific boxes are checked.

If the president said "go into congress and arrest every democrat" you would not be obligated to obey that. But if he said "deploy to DC as a show of force" you would. Nuance

 

[Rational Poster]

Just like the oath to the president?

Yeah, the oath of loyalty is to the constitution, the oath of obedience is to the office of the president, not the person or political party occupying the presidency.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

I mean I don't think it's that complicated. The oath is to the constitution and the office, not the person in the office.

Even Scalia has talked about this.

Surface level, yes. In practice, no. The office and the person blur in practice. Once his term is up his authority is gone, obviously. That's not being contested. What I'm saying is that, in practice some things are not as simple