Tim Walz abandoned his soldiers when they deployed to Iraq

[Mika-El]

Was it different when you were in the Army?

I have not stated nor will I disclose what I did because 1-it can not be verified, 2-I have not used my personal service and will not use my personal service as a moral posing platform to justify smearing any veteran, 3-I do not claim to be brave, a hero or better than anyone and/or have the right to question their "cowardice". I can only speak about myself. If you can't understand that and you come on this board I am going to end my comments to you and ask what happened to you? If you are indeed a man of service why do you not follow this basic code?

RF for God's sale Trump just ran another add accusing Walz of stolen valor when you know Trump's record.

What compels you to defend a man like that smear any vet?

My debates with you is over anyone calling Walz a liar, a coward and certainly misappropriating the accusation of stolen valor.

You asked me what is different? I am not aware the code you do not follow ever changed. I know young men now who feel they were cowards. You know what that is. Oh some call it ptsd. Its driven many a good person to drink themselves to death, commit suicide, engage in domestic violence, self destruct. Coward? I sat with man who peed their pants and shook you think I would call them cowards? My job was to clean their pants. You have me mixed up with someone else.

I told you as far as you are concerned I cleaned toilets, washed soiled pants, cleaned people's boils, skin infections, but when they shook or did other things you think I said a damn thing? You know better. I remained silent and slow moving in any thing I did and as quiet as possible. No I did not and will never join anyone for any reason insult a vet.

I am pissed off Vance who knew better lowered himself to be the sewage delivery man for Trump on this. Its not what vets do. They do not engage in what you do either and I say that not because I presume anything but because none of us have the right to morally judge servicepersons as cowards. None of us.

There are two types of conduct. Once is as you know before what you know as the JAG and its tribunals. There are strict rules if evidence before anyone is accused of anything dishonourable. As for the moral code, maybe just maybe you need to discuss that with a Chaplain if you can't see what you are doing is wrong.

Now let me please say this to end it-if I have made any comments that disparage you or insult you on any level, I apologize. I am upset you are supporting a smear campaign of a vet and tried to explain why. Believe me I am not in the position to insult you or anyone when it comes to their honour. I can only Judge myself. There are things in my line of work that make me wish I had never failed at certain things. Do not ask me to judge another. Thank you.

 

[RF667799]

No complying with mandatory regulations is obligatory, not ones conditional on your choosing. The consequences of not completing the testing is not for failure to comply its for choosing not to complete the requirement and instead retiring. No matter how many times you respond trying to deny and twist that it won't make what you say accurate. You continue to try defame Walz because he exercised his discretion to retire. He did not fail anything. You are fully aware if he was demoted for dereliction of duty he would NOT have been honourably discharged.

What I just stated is far different than what you are misrepresenting what happened and in fact what I stated can be verified by anyone.

I will not respond to the above point again as you have circled back and repeated it many times now and each time you repeat the false representation that Walz failed because he exercised his right to retire. He did not fail and he was not penalized. The procedure to appoint someone as an EP "acting" is temporary. Neither Walz or I said it was a permanent rank unless and until all requirements were completed.

I said it louder for you.

 

[Mika-El]

So what are you disputing with your foam flecked rants about hand to hand combat and such?

Maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote instead if trying to justify smearing a vet. Read my response above. I am done.

 

[RF667799]

I have not stated nor will I disclose what I did because 1-it can not be verified, 2-I have not used my personal service and will not use my personal service as a moral posing platform to justify smearing any veteran, 3-I do not claim to be brave, a hero or better than anyone and/or have the right to question their "cowardice". I can only speak about myself. If you can't understand that and you come on this board I am going to end my comments to you and ask what happened to you? If you are indeed a man of service why do you not follow this basic code?

RF for God's sale Trump just ran another add accusing Walz of stolen valor when you know Trump's record.

What compels you to defend a man like that smear any vet?

My debates with you is over anyone calling Walz a liar, a coward and certainly misappropriating the accusation of stolen valor.

You asked me what is different? I am not aware the code you do not follow ever changed. I know young men now who feel they were cowards. You know what that is. Oh some call it ptsd. Its driven many a good person to drink themselves to death, commit suicide, engage in domestic violence, self destruct. Coward? I sat with man who peed their pants and shook you think I would call them cowards? My job was to clean their pants. You have me mixed up with someone else.

I told you as far as you are concerned I cleaned toilets, washed soiled pants, cleaned people's boils, skin infections, but when they shook or did other things you think I said a damn thing? You know better. I remained silent and slow moving in any thing I did and as quiet as possible. No I did not and will never join anyone for any reason insult a vet.

I am pissed off Vance who knew better lowered himself to be the sewage delivery man for Trump on this. Its not what vets do. They do not engage in what you do either and I say that not because I presume anything but because none of us have the right to morally judge servicepersons as cowards. None of us.

There are two types of conduct. Once is as you know before what you know as the JAG and its tribunals. There are strict rules if evidence before anyone is accused of anything dishonourable. As for the moral code, maybe just maybe you need to discuss that with a Chaplain if you can't see what you are doing is wrong.

Now let me please say this to end it-if I have made any comments that disparage you or insult you on any level, I apologize. I am upset you are supporting a smear campaign of a vet and tried to explain why. Believe me I am not in the position to insult you or anyone when it comes to their honour. I can only Judge myself. There are things in my line of work that make me wish I had never failed at certain things. Do not ask me to judge another. Thank you.

You extracted something from a post of mine that was a response to someone else.

It has nothing to do with my position except that it was a response to someone who was telling me that military obligations aren't legal obligations or moral obligations and so aren't really obligations. To think that is evidence of someone with little or no experience with the military. He's wrong in that military obligations are legal obligations, and can be viewed as moral obligations. He's wrong in claiming that Walz's acceptance of his promotion wasn't accompanied with an obligation to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Academy. He seems to think it wasn't a real obligation. The Army at least views things differently. Evidenced by reducing Walz in rank, effective the day prior to his retirement date.

 

[RF667799]

Maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote instead if trying to justify smearing a vet. Read my response above. I am done.

I guess if you've beaten your strawman to death, there isn't much left to dispute.

 

[jaeger19]

Complying with regulations is an obligation. The UCMJ makes that clear. There are consequences from failing to comply. Consequences over which you often have little or no further recourse. You might be confusing the legalities of civilian life with the legalities of the UCMJ. They are different. In civilian life, you might be fired for calling your boss a mother****er. In the military, you might be subject to legal actions under the UCMJ that can include penalties of loss of pay, reduction in rank, and confinement. And guess who can decide your guilt and those penalties? Your boss.

Your cherry picking a few words from a dictionary definition doesn't prove that he had no obligation. Nothing in the complete definition indicates I am using the terms "obligations" and "obliged" improperly.

He did fail to meet his obligations, and in the Army meeting your obligations is a duty. He was obliged to abide by the terms he agreed to when he accepted his promotion. He didn't, so he was reduced in rank. In words you guys seem to find more palatable sometimes, they took that shit away.

Was it different when you were in the Army?

Complying with some regulations is an obligation.
You are right. Some are duties..that legally you must perform.

Some regulations are conditions or requirements.

No confusing civilian with military .
Like you said..failure to comply with obligations..gets you subjected to legal consequences..in the military.

As in the definition of obligation.
" a legal or moral duty".

However not all requirements..prerequisites or conditions are obligations.

The military makes it pretty clear what things are duties and which things are not

Walz was allowed to retire without going through the training for his promotion.
Because it was a condition of the promotion but not a duty.

Another condition of promotion etc is passing the army fitness test.
If a person retires before they pass that test..have tgey failed in their duty? Failed to fulfill an obligation?
Of course not.

Stop your silliness.

.

 

[RF667799]

Complying with some regulations is an obligation.
You are right. Some are duties..that legally you must perform.

Some regulations are conditions or requirements.

No confusing civilian with military .
Like you said..failure to comply with obligations..gets you subjected to legal consequences..in the military.

As in the definition of obligation.
" a legal or moral duty".

However not all requirements..prerequisites or conditions are obligations.

The military makes it pretty clear what things are duties and which things are not

Walz was allowed to retire without going through the training for his promotion.
Because it was a condition of the promotion but not a duty.

Another condition of promotion etc is passing the army fitness test.
If a person retires before they pass that test..have tgey failed in their duty? Failed to fulfill an obligation?
Of course not.

Stop your silliduplicates.

If they fail their PT test, yes they failed one of their duties. Soldiers are obliged to comply with regulations.

Walz was required to complete the Sergeants Major Course. That was an obligation he assumed when he accepted his promotion. He didn't meet that obligation, and so was reduced in grade.

Very simple. It only gets complicated when people try to obfuscate.

 

[jaeger19]

If they fail their PT test, yes they failed one of their duties. Soldiers are obliged to comply with regulations.

Walz was required to complete the Sergeants Major Course. That was an obligation he assumed when he accepted his promotion. He didn't meet that obligation, and so was reduced in grade.

Very simple. It only gets complicated when people try to obfuscate.

Wait..so if they retire BEFORE the take their next required PT test..
They have failed in their duty?.

If so. WHY are they allowed to retire while being in dereliction of duty?

Why was Walz allowed to retire..given an honorable discharge after 24 years of service..and relieve retirement benefits when according to you..he failed to complete his duty?

Is that common place in the military that when you fail to do your duty..the military grants you retirement..an honorable discharge and benefits??
Lol..

It is simple when you don't try to bs people into believing Walz " didn't do his duty".

After 24 years of volunteer military service and doing his duty. . Walz was granted an honorable discharge.. retirement and retirement benefits .

Any attempt to say he " didn't perform his duty or fulfill obligations " is bs.

 

[ClaraD]

You extracted something from a post of mine that was a response to someone else.

It has nothing to do with my position except that it was a response to someone who was telling me that military obligations aren't legal obligations or moral obligations and so aren't really obligations. To think that is evidence of someone with little or no experience with the military. He's wrong in that military obligations are legal obligations, and can be viewed as moral obligations. He's wrong in claiming that Walz's acceptance of his promotion wasn't accompanied with an obligation to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Academy. He seems to think it wasn't a real obligation. The Army at least views things differently. Evidenced by reducing Walz in rank, effective the day prior to his retirement date.

are you still trying to pretend you aren't smearing him or making judgement calls when your posts make it clear that you are indeed intent on smearing him?

 

[jnug]

are you still trying to pretend you aren't smearing him or making judgement calls when your posts make it clear that you are indeed intent on smearing him?

They just don't know that IT WON'T WORK, especially when they are swimming upstream into CORPORAL BONE SPURS. You know....the guy who claimed that his big threat to life and limb was STD's.

How courageous of you Donald. Did you get a medal for your courage in the face of sexual contact?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Welcome back, Swiftboat.

Walz spent 24 years in the National Guard. Tell me: how long was Trump’s military service?

Fun fact: I’m still within the edit window, and it turns out the OP doesn’t even believe Trump’s bone spurs excuse. This thread is the definition of chutzpah.

Don't try to mix the two. Trump didn't serve. Walz served until it didn't serve him. You can criticize both and many will but we don't have mandatory service any longer. Walz chose to serve until it looked like his life might be at risks. If all our soldiers took that path, we'd be in trouble.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Walz is extremely socialist, he's not left leaning, he's falling over on the left side. Now we are hearing the radical muslim ties to Timmy.

 

[RF667799]

Wait..so if they retire BEFORE the take their next required PT test..
They have failed in their duty?.

No, the PT test is required semi-annually and sometimes for attendance at schools. That will usually be a diagnostic though.

So if someone retires before they are required to take a PT test, then no they haven't failed in their duty.

But we are discussing someone who had a requirement to successfully finish the Sergeant Major Course, and he accepted that when he accepted his promotion. To use your imperfect analogy, he was a guy with an overdue PT test refusing to take it. So he was reduced in grade.

If so. WHY are they allowed to retire while being in dereliction of duty?

They discharged his duty for him, with an accompanying reduction in grade. He no longer had that duty after they reduced him.

Why was Walz allowed to retire..given an honorable discharge after 24 years of service..and relieve retirement benefits when according to you..he failed to complete his duty?

Again, his duty was discharged when they reduced him in grade for not completing the requirements it was his current duty to complete.

Is that common place in the military that when you fail to do your duty..the military grants you retirement..an honorable discharge and benefits??
Lol..

Once more, the Army discharged his duties. Right along with him as it turns out, and with a reduction in pay grade.

It is simple when you don't try to bs people into believing Walz " didn't do his duty".

Did the Army have reason to believe he would eventually refuse to complete the course he agreed to when he accepted his promotion? If they did, they wouldn't have promoted him. You appear to have little idea of the concept of duty in the military. Maybe you were in the Air Force?

After 24 years of volunteer military service and doing his duty. . Walz was granted an honorable discharge.. retirement and retirement benefits .

Any attempt to say he " didn't perform his duty or fulfill obligations " is bs.

The Army seemed to think he was obligated to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course when he accepted his promotion. Bet he signed papers to that effect when he accepted his promotion and enrolled in the course.

Did he successfully complete that course? Nope, he decided to retire after he had accepted the promotion and the obligation. So he was reduced in grade.

 

[RF667799]

are you still trying to pretend you aren't smearing him or making judgement calls when your posts make it clear that you are indeed intent on smearing him?

I am certainly making some judgement calls concerning his actions,but only relative to facts and my own experiences. If you think the facts around his actions are a smear, that's on you. Plenty of veterans would join you in that particular judgement.

 

[jnug]

I am certainly making some judgement calls concerning his actions,but only relative to facts and my own experiences. If you think the facts around his actions are a smear, that's on you. Plenty of veterans would join you in that particular judgement.

So as I suggested earlier, it appears we are just engaged in a forum circle jerk......which is fine. Most forums of this type devolve into circle jerks. Just don't expect this crap to effect the election because it won't.

 

[RF667799]

So as I suggested earlier, it appears we are just engaged in a forum circle jerk......which is fine. Most forums of this type devolve into circle jerks. Just don't expect this crap to effect the election because it won't.

I suspect it won't, so far as I am concerned. I am almost completely positive that either the Trump Vance ticket will be elected, or the Harris Walz ticket.

 

[jaeger19]

No, the PT test is required semi-annually and sometimes for attendance at schools. That will usually be a diagnostic though.

So if someone retires before they are required to take a PT test, then no they haven't failed in their duty.

But we are discussing someone who had a requirement to successfully finish the Sergeant Major Course, and he accepted that when he accepted his promotion. To use your imperfect analogy, he was a guy with an overdue PT test refusing to take it. So he was reduced in grade.


They discharged his duty for him, with an accompanying reduction in grade. He no longer had that duty after they reduced him.


Again, his duty was discharged when they reduced him in grade for not completing the requirements it was his current duty to complete.


Once more, the Army discharged his duties. Right along with him as it turns out, and with a reduction in pay grade.


Did the Army have reason to believe he would eventually refuse to complete the course he agreed to when he accepted his promotion? If they did, they wouldn't have promoted him. You appear to have little idea of the concept of duty in the military. Maybe you were in the Air Force?


The Army seemed to think he was obligated to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course when he accepted his promotion. Bet he signed papers to that effect when he accepted his promotion and enrolled in the course.

Did he successfully complete that course? Nope, he decided to retire after he had accepted the promotion and the obligation. So he was reduced in grade.

1. Exactly. The military requires a PT test.
And if you retire before you take the test..its not a dereliction of duty.
Nor is it a failure of duty to retire before you take a course required for promotion.

It's why the military honorably discharged him.

2. Yes. He had a REQUIREMENT to pass his course. He retired before he met that requirement so he lost rank. He wasn't OBLIGATED to take the course..otherwise he wouldn't have been allowed to retire.

Your analogy is bupkiss. He didn't first fail his course then refuse to take it again.

3. No..he didn't have the requirement after he retired and they reduced him.
If it was an obligation..i.e. a lawful duty he was to perform..they wouldn't have let him retire with an honorable discharge.

I'll ask again

Is it common place in the military that when you fail to do your duty..the military grants you retirement..an honorable discharge and benefits?

The army doesn't seem to have any issue with Mr Walz duty. Hence retirement..honorable discharge and retirement benefits.

It seems..
Any attempt to say he " didn't perform his duty or fulfill obligations " is bs.

 

[jaeger19]

Don't try to mix the two. Trump didn't serve. Walz served until it didn't serve him. You can criticize both and many will but we don't have mandatory service any longer. Walz chose to serve until it looked like his life might be at risks. If all our soldiers took that path, we'd be in trouble.

Hmmm.
So Walz at any time during his 24 years of service...if called to go to war..could have simply refused?.

Please explain.

 

[ClaraD]

I am certainly making some judgement calls concerning his actions,but only relative to facts and my own experiences. If you think the facts around his actions are a smear, that's on you. Plenty of veterans would join you in that particular judgement.

and you are wrong for doing so. He served for 24 years, he served honorably and did his duty. He has no control over who is deployed and who is not.

 

[jnug]

I suspect it won't, so far as I am concerned. I am almost completely positive that either the Trump Vance ticket will be elected, or the Harris Walz ticket.

Good guess!

 

[RF667799]

1. Exactly. The military requires a PT test.
And if you retire before you take the test..its not a dereliction of duty.
Nor is it a failure of duty to retire before you take a course required for promotion.

It's why the military honorably discharged him.

It's a failure of duty to not take a PT test when it's required. See if it's not. Next time your name comes down on the list required to take a PT test, time and date; don't go and see what happens.

Walz accepted his obligation to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course. He was demoted specifically for failing to do that. Or do you think that reduction in rank was just someone having fun down at finance and personnel?

2. Yes. He had a REQUIREMENT to pass his course. He retired before he met that requirement so he lost rank. He wasn't OBLIGATED to take the course..otherwise he wouldn't have been allowed to retire.

Of course he was obligated. His retirement was why he didn't meet that obligation, and his reduction in grade was the penalty for not meeting that obligation.

Your analogy is bupkiss. He didn't first fail his course then refuse to take it again.

I didn't say anything like that, and the PT test analogy is yours.

3. No..he didn't have the requirement after he retired and they reduced him.

No, after he retired he certainly didn't have that requirement. Nor did he have the requirement to report at 0700 in the morning, to be subordinate to his superiors...hell...all kinds of things aren't required after you are no longer in the military. What a stupid objection.

If it was an obligation..i.e. a lawful duty he was to perform..they wouldn't have let him retire with an honorable discharge.

It was a lawful duty. Are you saying he was unlawfully directed to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course? You really don't know what you're talking about. You're trying to make a semantic argument about Army regulations. Those don't work. Ask any Shithouse Lawyer you happen to meet during your service. Are you unaware that someone can be court martialed, reduced in rank, and still be honorably discharged upon expiration of their enlistment? It's an obligation to go to a scheduled dentist appointment in the Army, fer chrissake. You know why? That dentist office at that time and date is your place of duty. But missing a dentist appointment won't necessarily result in OTH discharge. But it might lighten your paycheck and have you confined. They start teaching you this stuff in basic training.

I'll ask again

Is it common place in the military that when you fail to do your duty..the military grants you retirement..an honorable discharge and benefits?

I've seen lots of people fail to do their duty and still retire with benefits and an honorable. You just really have no idea. You speak as if there is "Do your duty" or "Less than honorable discharge". It's not a stark dichotomy, as most service members would know.

The army doesn't seem to have any issue with Mr Walz duty. Hence retirement..honorable discharge and retirement benefits.

The Army did have an issue as evidenced by reducing him in rank and grade. That they didn't also dishonorably discharge him, have him drawn and quartered, or strung across an artillery piece for lashes doesn't have anything to do with that.

It seems..
Any attempt to say he " didn't perform his duty or fulfill obligations " is bs.

You say he wasn't obligated to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course.

The Army said he was, and that the penalty for not meeting that obligation was to be reduced in rank and grade.

It's pretty simple. It only gets complicated when attempts are made to obfuscate. Or...I dunno...maybe some civilians just really don't have the experience or knowledge to make intelligent arguments.

 

[RF667799]

and you are wrong for doing so. He served for 24 years, he served honorably and did his duty. He has no control over who is deployed and who is not.

24 years! 24 years! 24 years!

It's the last several months of those years are at issue. And of course, his claiming to be a retired Sergeant Major when that wasn't true.

 

[jaeger19]

It's a failure of duty to not take a PT test when it's required. See if it's not. Next time your name comes down on the list required to take a PT test, time and date; don't go and see what happens.

Walz accepted his obligation to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course. He was demoted specifically for failing to do that. Or do you think that reduction in rank was just someone having fun down at finance and personnel?



Of course he was obligated. His retirement was why he didn't meet that obligation, and his reduction in grade was the penalty for not meeting that obligation.


I didn't say anything like that, and the PT test analogy is yours.


No, after he retired he certainly didn't have that requirement. Nor did he have the requirement to report at 0700 in the morning, to be subordinate to his superiors...hell...all kinds of things aren't required after you are no longer in the military. What a stupid objection.



It was a lawful duty. Are you saying he was unlawfully directed to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course? You really don't know what you're talking about. You're trying to make a semantic argument about Army regulations. Those don't work. Ask any Shithouse Lawyer you happen to meet during your service. Are you unaware that someone can be court martialed, reduced in rank, and still be honorably discharged upon expiration of their enlistment? It's an obligation to go to a scheduled dentist appointment in the Army, fer chrissake. You know why? That dentist office at that time and date is your place of duty. But missing a dentist appointment won't necessarily result in OTH discharge. But it might lighten your paycheck and have you confined. They start teaching you this stuff in basic training.


I've seen lots of people fail to do their duty and still retire with benefits and an honorable. You just really have no idea. You speak as if there is "Do your duty" or "Less than honorable discharge". It's not a stark dichotomy, as most service members would know.


The Army did have an issue as evidenced by reducing him in rank and grade. That they didn't also dishonorably discharge him, have him drawn and quartered, or strung across an artillery piece for lashes doesn't have anything to do with that.


You say he wasn't obligated to successfully complete the Sergeant Major Course.

The Army said he was, and that the penalty for not meeting that obligation was to be reduced in rank and grade.

It's pretty simple. It only gets complicated when attempts are made to obfuscate. Or...I dunno...maybe some civilians just really don't have the experience or knowledge to make intelligent arguments.

1. Oh..so if you retire before you take that required PT test..you are in dereliction of duty?
Oh wait..you said you weren't..
No different than a required course for promotion
2. Yes Walz accepted that there was a requirement to take the course to keep his promotion.
Just as he understood there was a requirement to pass a fitness test.

He simply retired before he completed the course.

It was not an obligation. It was a requirement .

3. Nope. He was not OBLIGATED ..i.e. "required by law" to take that course.
He was required to take the course to keep the promotion but not legally obligated otherwise the military would not have let him retire ..
Or do you contend
Its common place in the military that when you fail to do your duty..the military grants you retirement..an honorable discharge and benefits?
4. You seem to make it a " stark dichotomy".
You seem to have issue with it.
While the military doesn't.
5. No..they didn't have an issue with him as they retired him with an honorable discharge and retirement benefits.
6. Right. He was not legally obligated to complete that course.
Now..in the 20 years prior he WAS legally obligated to do his duty and not simply decide to go awol. And if deployed..legally required to be deployed perhaps to die.

As you so often point out. Such dereliction of duty gets you court martialed...or dishonorably discharged or both.

But Walz wasn't courtmartialed ..he wasn't dishonorably discharged.

7. Yep. It's pretty simple. Walz did his duty and after 24 years he was allowed to retire with a honorable discharge and retirement benefits..

Any attempts to say he failed to perform his duty is bs. .

 

[RF667799]

1. Oh..so if you retire before you take that required PT test..you are in dereliction of duty?
Oh wait..you said you weren't..
No different than a required course for promotion

You're required to take that PT test when directed to do so. You're required to complete the Sergeant Major Course when you accept a promotion to E9. The regulations require you to take that course, and accepting the promotion is your acceptance of that requirement.

2. Yes Walz accepted that there was a requirement to take the course to keep his promotion.
Just as he understood there was a requirement to pass a fitness test.

He simply retired before he completed the course.

It was not an obligation. It was a requirement .

In the Army, you are obligated to meet requirements. You're trying to draw a difference that doesn't exist.

3. Nope. He was not OBLIGATED ..i.e. "required by law" to take that course.
He was required to take the course to keep the promotion but not legally obligated otherwise the military would not have let him retire ..
Or do you contend
Its common place in the military that when you fail to do your duty..the military grants you retirement..an honorable discharge and benefits?

You're repeating yourself. This has all been gone over already. He was obligated, and your definition cherry picked to support your weird idea that soldiers aren't obligated to comply with regulations or directions, matters not a bit.

4. You seem to make it a " stark dichotomy".
You seem to have issue with it.
While the military doesn't.
5. No..they didn't have an issue with him as they retired him with an honorable discharge and retirement benefits.
6. Right. He was not legally obligated to complete that course.
Now..in the 20 years prior he WAS legally obligated to do his duty and not simply decide to go awol. And if deployed..legally required to be deployed perhaps to die.

No, your obligations and duties don't end at 20 years. They end when you are discharged. You did better when you objected that duty ends after discharge. At least it was true, though a ridiculous objection.

And guess what? Even though one is generally obligated to deploy when directed, people get away with not deploying all the time.

As you so often point out. Such dereliction of duty gets you court martialed...or dishonorably discharged or both.

What dereliction of duty have I "so often pointed out" gets you court martialed or dishonorably discharged? You're trying to put that ignorant dichotomy across again.

But Walz wasn't courtmartialed ..he wasn't dishonorably discharged.

That's because not every failure to meet obligations or perform your duty as directed is punished with courts martial or dishonorable discharges. Sometimes you just get reduced in rank, and it might even be that such reduction is mandatory. And sometimes, nothing happens at all. It's your dichotomy that it is either meet obligations or be dishonorably discharged. That dichotomy is false.

7. Yep. It's pretty simple. Walz did his duty and after 24 years he was allowed to retire with a honorable discharge and retirement benefits..

And a reduction in rank, because there was at least one duty he failed to do.

Any attempts to say he failed to perform his duty is bs. .

You've tried to argue that it wasn't his duty to complete the Sergeant Major Course. You should have been available to him when he was reduced for not complying with what the Army obviously considered was the duty he assumed when he willingly accepted his promotion.

 

[CaughtInThe]