Posted on 08/19/2004 1:02:28 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
Think Patton. Think MacArthur. Neither were evangelical Christians yet both were slapped down for their political comments. LTG Boykin is no different.
Being a general is a very political job. Straight talk, evangelical or not, will get you in trouble.
I don't know what political statements Patton and MacArthur got slapped down for, however, I stand by my statement.
It looks like there are some here who would disagree with me, and that's okay. My opinion is that we are very close to losing this country because the times are changing and we're not allowing our military to change with them, and thereby are tying their hands and not allowing them to fight fire with fire.
I have a deep respect for those who have served in prior wars, and I honor their service. My dad served in WWII and Korea and is my #1 hero. But this is not WWII, and we cannot treat the WOT as a conventional war...obviously. There has never been a time like this for the US. The terrorists are groups who use their religion and who (without apology) call for the destruction of the US because of who we are...a Christian Nation! And they're doing it on our soil.
If this were another time, we would be rounding them up and watching them closely. But we're not, and they have merged well into our society and into our military. And with the aid of our military regulations, PC legal system, and media, the terrorists are tying our hands...all the while they're spouting their religious statements freely...but it's okay for them.
This has to be called out for what it is, at every opportunity, by those who can get the message out.
This goes beyond political. This is a religious battle for this country, the terrorists have made it that way, and Boykin is 100 percent correct!
I see you've sort of come around, Happy. Does that mean I could be your President? :)
Bump!
These day, my question regarding the Presidency is "Why would a rational individual want the job?"
___________
You don't know Patton. I'll get back on that later. MacArthur had deeply instilled Christian values also.
He expressed his opinion of Islam while in uniform. Said opinion of Islam is not the official position of the United States of America. That is what got him into trouble.
When you wear the uniform, you are not speaking for yourself, you're speaking for Uncle Sam.
Exactly. What would we be saying if a general got up in front of a leftist group and openly criticised the policies off the United States? We'd call him a traitor for undermining our President. And we'd be right. The fact that we tend to agree with the guy doesn't make what he did acceptible.
The President sets policy, he has said that this is not a war against Islam, and it isn't the place of a general to publicly contradict the President.
If he wanted to say it, he should have taken off the uniform. He should have issued the standard disclaimer that he wasn't speaking for his service (which is required, and which he failed to do).
That having been said, I don't think he should be drummed out. His career advancement should be delayed - I don't want anyone who thinks he knows public policy better than the President to rise any higher in the ranks.
I wonder what these people are going to do when Jesus "rules all nations with a rod of iron".
Well, at that time the United States of America will have fallen and it'll all be a moot point.
Until then, I want the civilian authorities in control of the military and any general who thinks he knows more about public policy than the President to be disciplined.
Different tack, but still the same result, I presume.
Welcome! ;)
Prolly he could have - but any soldier worth his salt will know the first item of battle is to ID your adversary, and classify friend or foe.
Boykin has - he was just too open about it for some. Although not outspoken as "official U.S. policy" yet, the time will come when the realization that his (Boykin's) assessment will be much more true than "religion of peace".
While all you say is true re: CIC and officers, our President has "misunderestimated" islam as a "religion of peace" when thousands of Christians die every year at their hand.
Doesn't matter. He's our President and if a general has a problem with the policy he should take it up with his Commander in Chief and not speak out against that policy when he's wearing the uniform of the United States Army.
Look, if he wanted to make his views known, he could have. Take off the uniform, issue the required disclaimer, and check with his bosses. All of which is standard procedure, and all of which he failed to do.
I say he gets what he deserves. A disloyal general cannot be tolerated. He should be thanked for his past service but denied further promotion. If the general was a lib we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and we wouldn't be accepting such a light punishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.