He deserved getting canned.

[Dave007inVegas]

Richard Spencer did not go quietly after Defense Secretary Mark Esper asked for his resignation as
secretary of the Navy over his handling of the case of SEAL Eddie Gallagher, whose demotion for taking
a photo with a corpse had been reversed by President Donald Trump.

In the letter he submitted on his way out the door, he did not say that he resigned but rather stated,
"I hereby acknowledge my termination."

The letter delivered a scathing rebuke of Trump, who he said did not agree with him on the importance
of military justice and discipline. He also said he had been given an order that he could not in
"good conscience obey."

What we have here is a hollier than thou fart who decided to take a stand on what he perceived to be a
battle of right vs. wrong and good vs. evil. He being rigt and good and Trump being wrong and evil.

It has been said many times to many people, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

 

[Willie99]

People in DC don't like a proactive POTUS.

People like me love him, a refreshing change.

Liberals hate him because most of them are nothing more than fanaticals in the political arena. They just know what their news source tells them

 

[Enfuego]

Let me provide a perspective on this matter and I think I can give you guys an educated take on this without much push back.

The DoD is not a democracy with one man in charge and that's the Commander-in-Chief. Unless he gives an order that is immoral, unethical or illegal, the orders are executed without fail. The Secretary positions are very political and they must tread lightly. Their job is to provide advice and counsel to the President while also commanding their forces.

One the POTUS gives an order, should they carry the order out? Yes (unless specified above).
Should the POTUS be involved in intimate military discipline? IMO No.
Should the POTUS give orders over Twitter? No.
Should a Navy Seal be disciplined for posing for a photo with a dead enemy? Yes but how is up for debate.

Was Spencer wrong for his actions related to the directive given by POTUS in this case? Yes, but he knows what kind of position he's in an who he's dealing with here. Should the POTUS be involved in military discipline actions? No way but I'll admit, I don't know all the details involving this case but it does set a dangerous precedent.

 

[Willie99]

The POTUS can pardon anyone for any reason, can this decision be considered an extension of that authority? I think so

Trump didn't want a man who's put his life on the line for his country to have his life ruined for this picture

It's another way of saying I got your back to our servicemen, although I realize it's a fine line to walk

Moral vs discipline

 

[brendanjack]

Trump is awesome . Just when you think he’s gonna lay low he pulls a McGrubber. It’s comical fuk these politicians . Dick blumenthal now there’s someone we can trust . He was on a mission with Brian Williams and there both still getting payed what a joke

 

[Dave007inVegas]

The POTUS can pardon anyone for any reason, can this decision be considered an extension of that authority? I think so

Trump didn't want a man who's put his life on the line for his country to have his life ruined for this picture

It's another way of saying I got your back to our servicemen, although I realize it's a fine line to walk

Moral vs discipline

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]Damn Willie sometimes you even impress me.

When the enemy is attempting to do irreparable harm to you all bets are off.
When Spencer spends a day in Gallagher's shoes then he has the right to criticize until
then he needs to stifle his holier than thou attitude.

Was Gallagher taking a picture with "Bernie" crude? Maybe. But I can assure you there are
thousands just like that in man caves scattered across our country.

Gallagher is a first class warrior while Spencer was a half ass bureaucrat. [/FONT]

 

[Enfuego]

Damn Willie sometimes you even impress me.

When the enemy is attempting to do irreparable harm to you all bets are off.
When Spencer spends a day in Gallagher's shoes then he has the right to criticize until
then he needs to stifle his holier than thou attitude.

Was Gallagher taking a picture with "Bernie" crude? Maybe. But I can assure you there are
thousands just like that in man caves scattered across our country.

Gallagher is a first class warrior while Spencer was a half ass bureaucrat.

All of this may be true but we follow a law of armed conflict and there are rules. Nobody gets a pass. That’s my only point.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

All of this may be true but we follow a law of armed conflict and there are rules. Nobody gets a pass. That’s my only point.

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]And that's why we continue to lose wars. IMHO there are no rules in combat. [/FONT]

 

[Enfuego]

And that's why we continue to lose wars. IMHO there are no rules in combat.

Your response shows why there's a need for adults to lead troops in combat. See William Calley.

 

[Willie99]

Does the punishment fit the crime?


Do other people take similar pictures that are never circulated?

 

[RunMaker]

Sheep goy.

Might want to take a closer look at Esper. And I mean a real closer look.

Keep taking it up the ass with your fake news on the left and the right.

 

[Michelangelo]

I'm with the President.

Rules of combat cannot be PC. Having your life ruined for taking a picture of a dead combatant is drenched in the sick pc culture that has even infiltrated our battlefields.

Change the rules. In the mean time let common sense prevail with the scales heavily weighed towards our soldiers in combat.

 

[Enfuego]

Does the punishment fit the crime?


Do other people take similar pictures that are never circulated?

A) No but I'm not familiar with the full case either Willie but I do know he did some things he shouldn't have either.

B) I'm sure they do.

 

[Enfuego]

I'm with the President.

Rules of combat cannot be PC. Having your life ruined for taking a picture of a dead combatant is drenched in the sick pc culture that has even infiltrated our battlefields.

Change the rules. In the mean time let common sense prevail with the scales heavily weighed towards our soldiers in combat.

There are no rules of combat. There are laws of armed conflict and civilized nations adhere to them such as there is no targeting religious/medical places of worship/practice etc, as an example.

The laws of armed conflict don't have anything to do with being PC. They have to do with acting with some common sense and decency.

For example, you can't line up 50 surrendering enemy forces and execute them. There has to be common sense and PC is not involved. Michelangelo, we've been doing this for some time. This is not a new concept in combat.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Your response shows why there's a need for adults to lead troops in combat. See William Calley.

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]My response comes from experience. As for Caley he lost it that day. It happens. No one is perfect. [/FONT]

 

[Dave007inVegas]

There are no rules of combat. There are laws of armed conflict and civilized nations adhere to them such as there is no targeting religious/medical places of worship/practice etc, as an example.

The laws of armed conflict don't have anything to do with being PC. They have to do with acting with some common sense and decency.

For example, you can't line up 50 surrendering enemy forces and execute them. There has to be common sense and PC is not involved. Michelangelo, we've been doing this for some time. This is not a new concept in combat.

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]Whatever branch of the service you're in you've been in it too long. You've been brainwashed
into believing that those above you in rank are superior when in fact it's only because they
have been there longer than you have.

The rules of engagement are drafted by life long bureaucrats. Think about that. They are the
people with the least knowledge and experience.

Do you know why FDR was so successful? For the most part he stayed out of it and let Eisenhower
call the shots.

There are laws of armed conflict and civilized nations adhere to them.

If they were civilized nations they wouldn't need laws of armed conflict.[/FONT]

 

[Enfuego]

Whatever branch of the service you're in you've been in it too long. You've been brainwashed
into believing that those above you in rank are superior when in fact it's only because they
have been there longer than you have.

The rules of engagement are drafted by life long bureaucrats. Think about that. They are the
people with the least knowledge and experience.

Do you know why FDR was so successful? For the most part he stayed out of it and let Eisenhower
call the shots.

There are laws of armed conflict and civilized nations adhere to them.

If they were civilized nations they wouldn't need laws of armed conflict.

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore once. Back on ignore. You can't discuss things calmly without personally attacking me and I'm just not interested in that sort of back and forth with you.

You just go ahead and believe there should be no rules in combat. Those of us with a moral compass will take care of the troops.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore once. Back on ignore. You can't discuss things calmly without personally attacking me and I'm just not interested in that sort of back and forth with you.

You just go ahead and believe there should be no rules in combat. Those of us with a moral compass will take care of the troops.

Good for you.

There are laws of armed conflict and civilized nations adhere to them. That is an oxymoron.
​