General Pace, You Can Save the US

Dear General Pace,

I note with admiration your courage in making clear your private concerns about the safety of the US military and the longterm danger to US national security caused by the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the quagmire in Iraq.

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero - who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice. Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

Article 134 reads:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

Article 133 reads:

"Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

If you have reason to believe that the President is responsible for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and for "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital" then you have the obligation to act.

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says:

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

(c) All officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers shall have authority to quell all quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this Code and to apprehend persons subject to this Code who take part in the same.

I understand that it would not be an action to undertake lightly.

In all your 39 years of service you have shown total loyalty to the chain of command.

However, given the current imperilment of US troops, and the "Conduct Unbecoming Of An Officer And A Gentleman" of this President - you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor and to the US Constitution.

I wish you well as you prepare to undertake the most heroic action of your distinguished career.

General Pace - please save the US.

Respectfully yours,

Martin Lewis

That authority does not exist and has never existed under the constitution or the uniform code of military justice. You are undeniably advocating treason and the overthrow of the government by force. For a soldier at any level to even entertain such a disgusting idea is of itself an offense, contrary to their oath and punishable under the UCMJ.

The president, even in his role as commander in chief, is not subject to the UCMJ and is answerable only to congress (through the impeachment process) and the American people (through the vote).

Fortunately General Pace and our soldiers understand this better than you, you moronic piece of traitorous shit.

lol whut

This just in off the wire: WASHINGTON —  Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace denied late Friday that he will recommend to President Bush that the U.S. cut the number of troops stationed in Iraq almost by half next year.

The Los Angeles Times had reported in its Friday editions that Pace would make that recommendation privately to the president before he steps down in October.

"The story is wrong," Pace's office said late in the day. Earlier, Pace's office had refused to confirm or deny the report, saying only that it was speculative and that the Joint Chiefs chairman had made no decision.

BTW IF what you are saying is even legal, who become CINC? Gen Pace? The constitution is designed so that the civilian government is in control of the military at all times...so you are asking General pace to break his oath to support and defend the constitution, an offense you suggest should be punished by being relieved of command. So then by your reasoning, someone would then have to remove Gen Pace and then someone would have to remove the person who relieved Gen Pace and so on and so on....

In short....DAMN YOU'RE DUMB

no U

>>2
Thread over.

nice try but the prez is still a civ. meaning he is not a military officer and can not be relive of command or his position(thoes rules dont apply to him) except by order of congress...read the constitution

I sense idiocy

military dictatorship! cool!

welcum to turkey, u wish lern how we do here? yes yes u follow me now.

>>8
lol wow, just wow.

but we mst stop tha criminal bush nows lol!

General Peter Pace is Anti-gay. Ever noticed how 'Anti-gay' Republicans keep getting arrested in toilets with someones dick in their mouth. Conclusion: General Peter Pace is a steaming homosexual. When you look at him next, imagine him giving a blowjob to the guy sitting next to him. If you can't imagine this, photoshop and flicker are your friends.

OP why did you post this here, General Pace doesn't read 4chan text boards?

>>15
No but soldiers in Iraq use Flikr ;-)

Why would I want to save such a shity country as the US

DIE YANKFAGS

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that last one wasn't General Pace.

>>18
obvisouly a fucking brit...hey didnt we whop thier asses once and they failed tried again and we whoped them again...does that = epic fail on thier part?

STOP OUR FASCIST GOVERNMENT
ON WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 5TH 2007 STAND AND FIGHT
PAINT SIGNS BLACK...
TIP EVERYTHING POSSABLE....
EGG EVERYTHING...
DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT....
AND PASS THE WORD! POST THIS POST EVERY WHERE HUMANLY POSSABLE..
NOW GO!

waitwhat?

>>19
Losing against the US isn't an epic fail, it's perfectly normal.

>>22
lol never looked at it that way

>>22
If the US is losing is than an epic fail?

>>24
All lose eventually. Try not to lose the important ones.

>>19
Fucking yank idiot. Your shity country loses most of its wars. In fact I cant think if a single war that it manages to win on its own. IT NEEDS THE HELP OF RUSSIA OR THE UK TO WIN ITS WARS. Uncle Sam begged for British help in Veitnam. It wanted the Brits to bail them out. AHAHAHAHAHA. You fucking lost. Fuck you American scum. AHAHAHAHA. I jumped for joy at 9/11. AHAHAHAHA FUCK YOU AHAHAHAHA

England was the amazingly brilliant military country that came up with line-comnbat or whatever you want to call it. Just shoot til u die and the person behind you will take your place. Cover from enemy fire? what is this "cover" you speak of? Also we won the Spanish American War. Also we one the Mexican American War. Plus have there been any wars involving major countries (not proxy wars) in recent years that involved only two countries? Also in WW2 we beat the japanese on our own since communist assholes did not help like they were supposed to. British people are fags on an epic scale and it is a country founded on the most extreme tyranical bigotry of all countries, although im not saying im a nigger lover.

Fuck you yank your chating shit out of your ass as normal. Beating Mexico big fucking whooop. THE CHINKS OWNED YOUR SHITY ASS DURING THE KOREAN WAR.

Also the Japs had 1 million troops tied up fighting the chinese.

Also the yank fags where so scared of invading Japan they needed to commit a gross war crime, and drop a nuke on the Japs.

Fuck you America.

England wouldn't allow the press to cover the Falklands War because they didn't want their public to QQ over war. This is censorship.

Keep in mind Brits have no constitutional rights, and the Magna Carta is a limited document.

>>27

arquebuses/blunderbuses which were the first used kind of firearms, were terribly inaccurate, and the only thing you could do was fire alot of them at the same time and hope something hit something. The easiest way to do this was to make a formation like they did. Avoid hitting your own people and have a greater chance of hitting the enemy. Another thing is that these things could be operated by whoever, so instead of using a lifetime on training people to use a longbow, just grab average joe, let him try it off once or twice, and he's good to go to the front line. 

>>30
Actually >>27 is partially right. A large proportion of military doctrine and training at the time was focussed on morale, getting men to stand in the field and fire 3 shots a minute whatever the fuck happens. To do this you need to kit your men out in smart uniforms, drill them, put them in formations, play music and all those things that don't make much sense today but which helped prevent your soldiers from routing. The minute one person steps out of line in a formation the rest of the regiment would believe it is ok to run, this is why the slightest infraction was dealt with severely.

>>30
Also the same discipline that prevented routs prevented formations from being slaughterred by artillery or cavalry. If you are being fired apon by artillery you need to disperse and lie down quickly or you're pretty much fucked. If you are being charged by cavalry you need to form a square or wedge quickly.

DUR DUR DUR I IS A BRITFAG LOL!

>>33
OMG THAT IS SO MEAN I AM BUTT HURT

;-;

>>34

Then stop taking it up the ass.

Enjoy your handgun-ban and enjoy being shot.