FYI...UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE...

www.thebulwark.com/p/what-americans-shou...gal-orders-two-oaths


Here’s the truth, learned on the first day of service by every enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian, and coast guardsman, and learned but sometimes not recognized by the young officers who first take the oath: There is not one military oath. There are two. And the differences between them explain exactly who is responsible for refusing illegal orders, why the system was designed that way, and what it means for this moment.

One reason the debate keeps going sideways is that the public keeps talking about “the military” as if it were a single, undifferentiated mass of people with identical obligations. It isn’t. The Constitution and Congress deliberately created two different oaths—one for enlisted personnel, and one for officers.

APPARENTLY A CONCRETE EXPLANATION IS NEEDED FOR THE POTUS ......80 YO. ALMOST....IT IS MORE THAN TIME FOR HIS DEPARTURE...2026 IS THE LINE DRAWN IN THE SAND.

Could you list Trump’s illegal orders? That moron Slotkin and the other treasonous assholes didn’t bother to mention what those orders are. They should all be charged and removed from office.

These same Democrats were firing service members who refused to take an experimental vaccine.

Hypocrites!

Rick wrote: Could you list Trump’s illegal orders? That moron Slotkin and the other treasonous assholes didn’t bother to mention what those orders are. They should all be charged and removed from office.

DOES THE WORD SEDITION SOUND FAMILIAR? DOES CALLING FOR A DEATH SENTENCE SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE SOLUTION? R WE REVERTING TO MEDIEVAL TIMES? SOUNDS LIKE IT TO ME.....2026 MID YEAR CAN NOT ARRIVE FAST ENOUGH...JMO

From your own link HA . . .

So while pundits and politicians continue fighting over the optics of the lawmakers’ video, the core reality remains: The safeguards are already built into the structure. The oaths already distribute responsibility. The law already forbids what some fear. And the officer corps already knows that they bear the constitutional duty to ensure that unlawful orders never reach the young men and women who follow them, and who, in effect, they also serve.

So, what it seems to me is that the 6 Democrats who said the military shouldn't follow unlawful orders are the individuals who fail to understand that the guardrails to prevent unlawful orders from being followed are already in place.

It was essentially WW II, where the world rejected the soldier's arguments that they were "just following orders" in perpetration of the Holocaust where it was explained to everyone that there were indeed lawful and unlawful orders and that the armed forces of a nation had an obligation to reject the latter while performing the former. Of course, when we aren't teaching history, and instead filling young minds with nonsense centered around beliefs instead of facts, such lessons are in danger of being lost and learned again.

There is a danger for an officer declaring that an order received is unlawful. That is a judgement call, a judgement which might not be shared by other officers during a court-martial, which is something that is all but assured if an officer refuses to follow an order. It will be decided whether the order was lawful or not during the court-martial, that too is part of the UCMJ, unless the order received was clearly unlawful on its face. And in the "fog of war", there is little that is black and white . . .

Just like the media wants your clicks, politicians do too. They want to make mountains out of molehills. They have to convince you the world is ending and they are the only people preventing it from happening. They are trolling for donations and votes 24/7. Even right after an election.

And the bigger they hype the crisis, the more likely you will be to donate and volunteer for them.

PrintSmith wrote: From your own link HA . . .

So while pundits and politicians continue fighting over the optics of the lawmakers’ video, the core reality remains: The safeguards are already built into the structure. The oaths already distribute responsibility. The law already forbids what some fear. And the officer corps already knows that they bear the constitutional duty to ensure that unlawful orders never reach the young men and women who follow them, and who, in effect, they also serve.

So, what it seems to me is that the 6 Democrats who said the military shouldn't follow unlawful orders are the individuals who fail to understand that the guardrails to prevent unlawful orders from being followed are already in place.

It was essentially WW II, where the world rejected the soldier's arguments that they were "just following orders" in perpetration of the Holocaust where it was explained to everyone that there were indeed lawful and unlawful orders and that the armed forces of a nation had an obligation to reject the latter while performing the former. Of course, when we aren't teaching history, and instead filling young minds with nonsense centered around beliefs instead of facts, such lessons are in danger of being lost and learned again.

There is a danger for an officer declaring that an order received is unlawful. That is a judgement call, a judgement which might not be shared by other officers during a court-martial, which is something that is all but assured if an officer refuses to follow an order. It will be decided whether the order was lawful or not during the court-martial, that too is part of the UCMJ, unless the order received was clearly unlawful on its face. And in the "fog of war", there is little that is black and white . . .

i UNDERSTAND THAT ''A FEW GOOD MEN'' WAS A MOVIE AND JACK NICHOLSON PLAYED A BRILLIANT,BUT EGOTISTICAL OFFICER .....HERE'S WHAT I VIEW....''U CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" SO BLUNTLY STATED....IS PRETTY ACCURATE....THERE R DECISIONS MADE THAT R CLEARLY
NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT AND WE WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT THEM....BECAUSE OF 'FOG OF POSS. WAR'.....OUR PRESENT PREDICAMENT IS THE MILITARY HAS BEEN STRIPPED OF EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE AND THE BARE BONES OF THE MILITARY COMPLEX IS A HUGE PROBLEM.....YES THERE IS LITTLE THAT IS BLACK OR WHITE, BUT THE GREY IS TROUBLESOME, WHY? IT LEADS TO POOR CHOICES OR WORSE YET, LACK OF EXPOSURE TO
THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OF THE MJR'S (MAJOR JOB RESPONSIBILITIES)......IT'[S CALLED NOVICE OR INEXPERIENCED PERSONNEL....AND OUR PRESENT POTUS IS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM....JMO

President Trump is restoring the US military. After years of being used as a social program, and having the Left denigrate their service and spit on returning veterans.

For the 250th anniversary of the republic, our military will celebrate their achievements again. Freeing nations from communist rule, freeing enslaved people, and aiding communities around the world after disaster strikes.

Celebrate nine decades of Pax Americana.

FredHayek wrote: President Trump is restoring the US military. After years of being used as a social program, and having the Left denigrate their service and spit on returning veterans.

For the 250th anniversary of the republic, our military will celebrate their achievements again. Freeing nations from communist rule, freeing enslaved people, and aiding communities around the world after disaster strikes.

Celebrate nine decades of Pax Americana.

he military is currently facing challenges with staffing, particularly at the officer level, as recruitment has been difficult. The Army, for example, has seen a decline in active-duty personnel and is struggling to meet its recruitment goals, which could lead to a further reduction in force size. resources.aferm.org USAFacts
Current Staffing Levels of Military Officers
Overall Officer Strength

As of 2025, the total number of active-duty officers in the U.S. military is approximately 1.3 million.
The Army has faced significant challenges in maintaining its officer strength, with a projected decline in active-duty personnel.

Recruitment and Retention Challenges

The Army's recruitment has been particularly difficult, with a 41% decrease in recruits since 1987 and a 30% attrition rate within the first three years of service.
Recent efforts have aimed to improve recruitment, including increased pay and adjusted strategies, but challenges remain due to a shrinking pool of eligible candidates.

Comparison of Officer Retention Rates
Military Branch Current Officer Strength Attrition Rate (First 36 Months)
Army Approximately 450,000 30%
Marine Corps Approximately 186,000 19%
Navy Approximately 330,000 23%
Air Force Approximately 320,000 23%
Factors Affecting Officer Staffing

The military has seen a decline in the percentage of young adults meeting physical and academic qualifications, dropping from 29% to 23% since 2017.
Economic competition and changing job market conditions have made it harder to attract high-quality candidates.

The military is actively working to address these staffing issues, but the overall trend indicates a need for continued focus on recruitment and retention strategies.
U.S. Army USAFacts

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote: Could you list Trump’s illegal orders? That moron Slotkin and the other treasonous assholes didn’t bother to mention what those orders are. They should all be charged and removed from office.

DOES THE WORD SEDITION SOUND FAMILIAR? DOES CALLING FOR A DEATH SENTENCE SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE SOLUTION? R WE REVERTING TO MEDIEVAL TIMES? SOUNDS LIKE IT TO ME.....2026 MID YEAR CAN NOT ARRIVE FAST ENOUGH...JMO

You do don’t answer the question. What orders were illegal?