LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

SecNav Fired

He made the mistake of disagreeing with the orange trainwreck, who has exactly ZERO hours in the military... and is as ill equipped to be a commander in chief as is humanly possible.

Funny how so many get canned after disagreeing with him.. huh?



And the ball lickers rejoice!
 
With this administration, there's no telling how this truly went down. But the man is clearly free of the Trump stigma to be gone over a point of honor and supporting his people.
 
Kantarii said:
The military is required, expected to follow all lawful orders from the chain of command.
Click to expand...

There was no lawful order. He actively interfered with the lawful UCMJ process at the insistence of a FAUX Nooze instigator. The entire military chain of command was upset to the point some were considering resignation.
 
Nov. 24 (UPI) -- Defense Secretary Mark Esper asked for the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer on Sunday, citing his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL convicted found guilty of posing for photos with a dead prisoner of war.

Esper lost "trust and confidence" in Spencer after he learned the Navy secretary had contradicted his public position by privately proposing to the White House that President Donald Trump allow the Navy to conduct an internal review of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher and he would then restore his rank and allow him to retire with his Trident pin.

"I am deeply troubled by this conduct shown by a senior DOD official," said Esper. "Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position. I wish Richard well."

The decision comes one day after Spencer denied reports that he had threatened to resign after President Donald Trump intervened in Gallagher's case.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...esign-over-Navy-SEAL-case/2631574637563/?sl=1
 
jaF0 said:
There was no lawful order. He actively interfered with the lawful UCMJ process at the insistence of a FAUX Nooze instigator. The entire military chain of command was upset to the point some were considering resignation.
Click to expand...

Let them go, most of the senior military leadership was put there by Obama anyway. He pumped a whole bunch of political officers into the military and fucked up the officer corps big time. The CinC has every constitutional right to do what he did and officers who don't like it should salute and say "yes sir" or resign their commissions. Those who resist the orders of the President should face courts martial, confinement, and bad conduct discharges.
 
Spencer tried to have things both ways (shades of BotanyBoomer!): publicly wringing his hands about Naval discipline and tradition whilst privately bypassing the chain of command to negotiate a private deal with Trump.

Gallagher, meanwhile, simply has to run out the clock: at midnight on November 30th, he has his 20 years of service and can retire. He just has to keep his trident badge until then.

Trump then spluttered "but but cost overrruns on CVN78!" as a distraction for his gullible followers. Like Trump really cares about cost overruns... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
RobDownSouth said:
Spencer tried to have things both ways (shades of BotanyBoomer!): publicly wringing his hands about Naval discipline and tradition whilst privately bypassing the chain of command to negotiate a private deal with Trump.

Graham, meanwhile, simply has to run out the clock: at midnight on November 30th, he has his 20 years of service and can retire. He just has to keep his trident badge until then.

Trump then spluttered "but but cost overrruns on CVN78!" as a distraction for his gullible followers. Like Trump really cares about cost overruns... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you mean Gallagher? Truth is Rob, there are some problems with the navy JAG as well. They too think they're above the CinC as well. I've come to understand they were advising Admiral Green to disregard the President's comments. We need to clean these subversive leftist lawyers out of the DOD as well as the traitors in the Office Of Net Assessment.:D
 
Rightguide said:
Did you mean Gallagher? Truth is Rob, there are some problems with the navy JAG as well. They too think they're above the CinC as well. I've come to understand they were advising Admiral Green to disregard the President's comments. We need to clean these subversive leftist lawyers out of the DOD as well as the traitors in the Office Of Net Assessment.:D
Click to expand...

You were correct, I got the murderer's name wrong. My apologies

Congrats on getting your picture in the news!
https://i.imgur.com/GU7XfeF.jpg
 
Now Trump can appoint Sarah Sanders or Kellyanne Conway as Sec. to Navy.
 
Rightguide said:
Did you mean Gallagher? Truth is Rob, there are some problems with the navy JAG as well. They too think they're above the CinC as well. I've come to understand they were advising Admiral Green to disregard the President's comments. We need to clean these subversive leftist lawyers out of the DOD as well as the traitors in the Office Of Net Assessment.:D
Click to expand...
Be sure to let us know where to find those veterans, so we can spit on them.
 
The entire issue is tangled up in a political/legal/reasonable morass. The entire UCMJ re. warfighting needs a reevaluation.

I was reading an article on the this subject and came across the below quote;

Esper said Trump had a constitutional right to intervene, but others worry that such actions undermine the credibility of American claims to be a leader in ethical and lawful behavior on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

AP article

So what is the purpose of the military? To be a leader in lawful and ethical battlefield behavior or to kill people and break things until the enemy has neither the will or the means to resist? Which of those missions are we to emphasize because you just can't have both. This is a discussion that has to take place.

Of course there has to thresholds of acceptable behavior while at the same time we can't hamstring the war fighter by having every single action subject to review by a group of attorneys, especially when the war fighter is in close contact with the enemy and most particularly when engaged in asymmetrical warfare.

It was clear that during the Obama administration the emphasis was on "ethical and lawful behavior on the battlefield." And that emphasis was also reflected in the ROE's, ROE's that managed to get a lot of soldiers killed or maimed. ROE's that actually gave the enemy the advantage. The ROE's were easy to roll back, the courtroom barrister attitude towards warfare not so much.

At the same time we can't allow a "kill them all let God sort them out" attitude to prevail on the battlefield either. And most particularly in asymmetric warfare scenario's. And that's why a reevaluation needs to take place.
 
bellisarius said:
So what is the purpose of the military? To be a leader in lawful and ethical battlefield behavior or to kill people and break things until the enemy has neither the will or the means to resist?
Click to expand...

That you would raise that question proves you to be a BB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rae121452
today in lgbt+ history...
Replies
2
Views
426
rae121452
rae121452
B
Baby Yoda Gives Trump "the finger"
Replies
8
Views
1K
bodysong
B
B
The Most Dishonest Administration in U.S. History
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
bodysong
B
U
Please Sign This Post of Sorrow and Sadness For Your Loss to the Clinton's
Replies
14
Views
2K
Politruk
P
THROBBS
ABC Exhausting, though not Exhaustive
Replies
9
Views
9K
Sunlover102
Sunlover102
Back
Top