But if you’re still prattling on about that whole “uniforms are magic” crap then, hey, why don’t you consider giving it a rest? If you were going to convince anyone, you would have done so about 5,000 words ago.

You don’t do politics in uniform out of respect for the uniform. He was respectful enough toward yKos, but he, through ignorance, showed a lack of respect to the Army.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM

…or, I suppose you could just keep going right on forever, couldn’t you?

SGT Aguina is not Hitler, Napoleon nor Cromwell.

The “Man on Horseback” is not going to take over the USA because the SGT wore his uniform where he shouldn’t have.

Unless this is a pattern with the SGT and he’s been counseled on it before, he will not be punished. That would break the rules.

There will be an administrative action and none of us will ever know about it unless the SGT tells us because that’s also in the rules.

CPT Soltz will continue, barring therapy, to have anger issues.

And Democracy will continute its lurching way in this Republic.

There’s no there there to get.

If democracy was in imminent danger of collapse because a reservist in uniform speaks his mind at an “educational” seminar, pretty sure I would be aware of that particular danger.

Instead the danger I’m aware of is moonbats claiming there is no danger from Islamofascism, no such thing as terrorism and Bush lied all those poor gullible dimorats into voting for war after war after war and now for FISA changes that will destroy the constitution.

One boneheaded Canadian “getting” the vapors over a truthful nerdy reservist in uniform doesn’t even register on the nanoevent meter.

If you’re trying to say that everyone in that room who loudly announced (and/or wore accoutrement to the effect) that he was a member of the US armed forces and then said something about politics should be punished in exactly equal measure… congratulations: you’re not a moron.

You don’t do politics in uniform out of respect for the uniform. He was respectful enough toward yKos, but he, through ignorance, showed a lack of respect to the Army.

OPFOR is run and founded by serving combat arms officers. They were taught from early in their United States military career not to mix politics and the military for the most serious reasons.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 8:37 PM

You’ve typed an awful lot now, and I fully realize that by the time you have to ask this, it’s always a stupid question… But what is your point?

If you’re trying to say that everyone in that room who loudly announced (and/or wore accoutrement to the effect) that he was a member of the US armed forces and then said something about politics should be punished in exactly equal measure… congratulations: you’re not a moron.

But if you’re still prattling on about that whole “uniforms are magic” crap then, hey, why don’t you consider giving it a rest? If you were going to convince anyone, you would have done so about 5,000 words ago.

Hmmmm…

You can burn the American Flag and put Jesus in a bottle of piss…

But you can’t talk politics while wearing your uniform at the Koz Kidz Konvention.

Yes. That makes total. Perfect. Sense.

thareb on August 6, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Thareb,

Pakistan is run by a general who took over politically in a coup. So was militant Japan before WW2.

A secret society founded by army officers seeking to establish a military dictatorship—the Sakura Kai (Cherry Society, the cherry blossom being emblematic of self-sacrifice)—plotted to attack the Diet and political party headquarters, assassinate the prime minister, and declare martial law under a “Showa Restoration” government led by the army minister. Although the army canceled its coup plans (to have been carried out in March 1931), no reprisals were taken and terrorist activity was again tacitly condoned.

Notice I’m being roundly attacked by ignorant but well meaning people here, but if you go to this thread at the milblog OPFOR, frequented by experienced and veteran military men of all ages, they all agree with my core point and any disagreement is about details around the edges while we strive to get the facts right.

OBVIOUSLY I and everyone else understands there is daylight between a “secret society founded by army officers” and “a Sergeant” One has the power to move divisions and one doesn’t.

So it would be crazy to say this case is as dangerous as the one in Japan.

But WHERE THE DANGER COMES is in the breaking down of this military tradition. That’s why, if you go to OPFOR, you’ll see these military officers, veterans, and experienced commentators reluctantly, like myself, believe some form of discipline is needed for Aguina.

We also believe Stoltz was a jerk, but unfortunately technically right. Still, OPFOR commentator, DaveO, points out:

“I remain stuck on the entire point to Stoltz’s website/movement/raison d’etre is him in his uniform – him having served… so his words and behaviour undermine his message and damage his credentials. I can only imagine the counseling that jerk is getting today.”

I agree with every word of that.

OPFOR is run and founded by serving combat arms officers. They were taught from early in their United States military career not to mix politics and the military for the most serious reasons.

It is this tradition WHICH IS A CORNERSTONE OF WESTERN MILITARY THOUGHT that has kept the U.S., the most powerful nation in history, free from military dictatorship whereas other nations have been racked by it.

It’s the tradition and principal of separating military and civilian life that is at stake.

I was also taught these principals by my country’s military from a very young age, which is why I feel passionately about it. They were drilled home in us.

If there was a serious mixture of politics and the military, the officers who run OPFOR would realize it is their duty to report this to their chain of command and, if serious, work to thwart it. The officers who run this blog understand it can never become acceptable to mix the two.

So the symbolism of having a uniformed military member appearing at political events matters.

Do you get it now?

You can burn the American Flag and put Jesus in a bottle of piss…

But you can’t talk politics while wearing your uniform at the Koz Kidz Konvention.

Yes. That makes total. Perfect. Sense.

Since you include comment from 2 posters both who claim to be vets (US and Canada), I request clarification.

if he as a Captain was at a military event and he saw a Sergeant in uniform doing something inappropriate and, indeed, dangerous (in principle) in a democracy,
. . .

The blurring of this line has often lead to death and tyranny on a large scale

BS

You’re no vet…go ahead, have a cow!

So do you have an opinion or are you just keeping score?

boris on August 6, 2007 at 6:05 PM

If you’re talking to me, the former.

(Christoph, John of OP-For and RTO are not among that number.)

Hey! ;-)

if he as a Captain was at a military event and he saw a Sergeant in uniform doing something inappropriate and, indeed, dangerous (in principle) in a democracy,
. . .

The blurring of this line has often lead to death and tyranny on a large scale

BS

it’s your position that mixing uniformed military members and politics isn’t dangerous, as you’ve adamantly defended:

It is my position that this incident was not “dangerous”. Using that term for this situation even in principle is beyond silly.

Unfortunately, some of them have let their pride of opinion overrule their ability to comprehend what’s being said.

Stop flinging insults and READ.

The “incident” response was to your post …

it’s your position that mixing uniformed military members and politics isn’t dangerous, as you’ve adamantly defended:

7:38 PM
8:32 PM
8:42 PM
9:34 PM
10:33 AM

The simple fact of the matter is that most of those (eg 7:38PM) YOU referenced were about the INCIDENT.

Therefore you are either stupid or dishonest.

This incident was not “dangerous”. Using that term for this situation is beyond silly.

boris on August 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM

That’s because it’s quoted in the comment you wrote 13-minutes earlier:

indeed, dangerous (in principle) in a democracy

BS

boris on August 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM

it’s your position that mixing uniformed military members and politics isn’t dangerous, as you’ve adamantly defended:

7:38 PM
8:32 PM
8:42 PM
9:34 PM
10:33 AM

Don’t see “in principle” in that post which I responded to thus:

This incident was not “dangerous”. Using that term for this situation is beyond silly.

Apparently, The Brand Spanking New Theory Of Military Decorum says that as long as you’re not in uniform, then absolutely anything goes. Abuse of rank; public harassment and threats toward noncommissioned officers; slandering the commander-in-chief; encouraging the enemy; trying to demoralize our troops in the field…. Doing all of that and worse explicitly “on behalf of my Army” is absolutely 100% OK.

… since I criticized Stolz repeatedly and strongly on this and other threads.
 

(Which, with a ;-), ArmyAunt, is very strange behavior for a Koskid.)

How is using his MILITARY RANK at a POLITICAL event allowed?
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Apparently, The Brand Spanking New Theory Of Military Decorum says that as long as you’re not in uniform, then absolutely anything goes. Abuse of rank; public harassment and threats toward noncommissioned officers; slandering the commander-in-chief; encouraging the enemy; trying to demoralize our troops in the field…. Doing all of that and worse explicitly “on behalf of my Army” is absolutely 100% OK.

But if you so much as LOOK at a microphone while you’re wearing a uniform – regardless of what you may be intending to say – you’re a threat to the military cohesion. And that sort of behavior must be immediately squelched.

Get with the program; that’s been the law for almost a week now. Where have you been?

Obviously — yes.