So we listened to Riley's interview linked in another thread. Afterward, we went for a walk and the conversation naturally lent itself to what we had just heard. My husband is a God fearing patriot who served two tours in Iraq. He is military through and through.
My position: If the military didn't remove bodily autonomy by compelling members of the armed forces to put things into their bodies that they didn't want, people like Riley would still be in the military.
His position: Members of the armed services lose the right to bodily autonomy when they join. If one is ordered to take a given series of vaccines or meds, then one should have faith in the higher-ups who've deemed it necessary and follow those orders. If members of the military are allowed to pick and choose what they put in their bodies, then the chain of command breaks down and weakens the military as a whole. He went on to say that he was given all kinds of things when he served and he never questioned it. "It's the military way."
My counter position: But the c-19 vaccine was experimental and was only authorized for emergency use, which is why the FDA rushed the approval in order to give a legal leg to stand on with regard to the mandate. I contend that if members of the military have the right to refuse to put something in their bodies, then at least they are protected from anyone at the top who is involved in nefarious actions.
His contention: the military can't categorize orders (medical, combat etc) and function properly. An order is an order. Those who can't or won't follow them have the opportunity to leave the military.
We rarely talk about this kind of thing and today I was reminded of why...I can't help but wonder based on the Riley interview and papers if the CCP wasn't fully aware of this military mindset and this was part of their plan to weaken our military all along...with the help of JB of course...
OK … so I debated about giving this response, but I cant help but say we have a strange dichotomy of positions. First, I too am a retired Officer (Army). He is 100% correct about forfeiture of autonomy … EXCEPT! … this is not status quo.
As was aforementioned, you are both ‘right’, but with caveats. There was mountains of evidence to PROVE that service members were the least vulnerable population, and really didn't need a ‘shot’. The circumstances surrounding the mass deployment of the NON-FDA APPROVED (EUA is not approval) ‘shot’ was provably suspect. Remind your hero that the Anthrax requirement was rescinded after the DoD was sued and lost in court, for all the reasons this vax should be.
Under normal circumstances I would back his assertions 100%. These are NOT normal circumstances. Not even a little bit.