Families United for our Troops and their Mission.

[Plane]

http://www.familiesunitedmission.com/



Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. We are a grassroots coalition of Gold Star families, veterans, families with loved ones in harm's way, and Americans who share a deep appreciation for our men and women in uniform and support them in their efforts to make America safer by winning the War On Terror.

[Michael Tee]

<<who share a deep appreciation for our men and women in uniform and support them in their efforts to make America safer by winning the War On Terror. >>

"their efforts" in that this whole thing was their brainchild and their project?  because I thought that they were sent there to do what their President, with Congressional authorization, sent them to do.  So it isn't really their mission, but the President's and the Congress's.  And if and when the President (of his own volition or because the Congress had denied further funding) orders them back home, are they going to reply that this is their mission and only they can cancel it?

I don't think so.

Best not to lose sight of whose mission this really is, who ordered it and who can cancel it.

[Plane]

<<who share a deep appreciation for our men and women in uniform and support them in their efforts to make America safer by winning the War On Terror. >>

"their efforts" in that this whole thing was their brainchild and their project?  because I thought that they were sent there to do what their President, with Congressional authorization, sent them to do.  So it isn't really their mission, but the President's and the Congress's.  And if and when the President (of his own volition or because the Congress had denied further funding) orders them back home, are they going to reply that this is their mission and only they can cancel it?

I don't think so.

Best not to lose sight of whose mission this really is, who ordered it and who can cancel it.

     I doubt that a single officer or enlisted man of ours would agree with you , nor is there much suppot in the public for useing the military to secure "controll" (whatever that means) of oil.

I don't see how you can pretend that this doesn't mater.

[Michael Tee]

  << I doubt that a single officer or enlisted man of ours would agree with you , nor is there much suppot in the public for useing the military to secure "controll" (whatever that means) of oil.>>

My comments would apply regardless of what the mission is.  Even if I accepted the absurd argument that the U.S. military is in Iraq to ensure that the Iraqis are going to get democratic government ( which I wouldn't for a minute suggest could be true) it would still be true that the mission was not self-created, the army did not dream it up and assign it to themselves.

A civil authority sent the soldiers on that mission and a civil authority has the power to order them off that mission.  It can order them to seize the oil fields and it can order them to set the oil fields on fire.  The mission of the troops is to stay in Iraq and kill whoever they're told to kill untill such time as they're ordered to come back from Iraq or to go somewhere else and kill a whole new bunch of people.  The mission is not the army's to set or to define - - it's whatever the civil authority tells them it is.

So this business of "supporting the troops in their efforts" is bullshit.  Their mission was created by the civil authority and it can only be further defined or aborted by that same civil authority.  The troops don't "own" the mission, they are charged only with the duty of executing it until such time as they are told to stop.

[Plane]

  << I doubt that a single officer or enlisted man of ours would agree with you , nor is there much suppot in the public for useing the military to secure "controll" (whatever that means) of oil.>>

My comments would apply regardless of what the mission is.  Even if I accepted the absurd argument that the U.S. military is in Iraq to ensure that the Iraqis are going to get democratic government ( which I wouldn't for a minute suggest could be true) it would still be true that the mission was not self-created, the army did not dream it up and assign it to themselves.

A civil authority sent the soldiers on that mission and a civil authority has the power to order them off that mission.  It can order them to seize the oil fields and it can order them to set the oil fields on fire.  The mission of the troops is to stay in Iraq and kill whoever they're told to kill untill such time as they're ordered to come back from Iraq or to go somewhere else and kill a whole new bunch of people.  The mission is not the army's to set or to define - - it's whatever the civil authority tells them it is.

So this business of "supporting the troops in their efforts" is bullshit.  Their mission was created by the civil authority and it can only be further defined or aborted by that same civil authority.  The troops don't "own" the mission, they are charged only with the duty of executing it until such time as they are told to stop.

You know don't you that they are mostly American citizens .
What they think about the mission is very important.

Bill Clinton had a bad attude about that , day one a eight oclock he signed an executive order that never got obeyed , it got pulled .

Our soldiers are there to establish democracy and they do beleive in it and it is important that they do.

You may think it lucridous , but hy should anyone elese?

[Michael Tee]

<<You know don't you that they are mostly American citizens .
What they think about the mission is very important.>>

Not a whit more than what ANY other American thinks about the mission.  They only get one vote just like everybody else.

<<Bill Clinton had a bad attude about that , day one a eight oclock he signed an executive order that never got obeyed , it got pulled .>>

I'm not sure what order you're talking about, but I assume you mean one to the army.  If Clinton let the army get away with disobeying one of his orders, he's a jackass of the first order.  A military that can defy the elected civil authority is the death knell of democracy.  What happened in Chile can easily happen in your country and you are getting closer to it all the time.  Your barely disguised glee at Clinton's failure to enforce his orders on his own armed forces is hard to understand - - it's like an airline passenger celebrating the failure of three engines on his own plane at 20,000 feet.

[Plane]

Clinton was arrogant , the mitiary is all volenteer , this is not a good combination.