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...
Excellent response. Thank you. Like you, I believe the mandate was not handled in a legal manner. I have so much respect for my husband's role in serving our country. My frustration comes when I feel like have verified information about a given topic (like this one) and he can't wrap his head around it so we argue. The cognitive dissonance is real...for all of us. When I found Great Awakening and learned more about Q, naturally I shared with him. I sought his take on things from a military perspective...especially as it relates to Devolution and CoG. He would very patiently explain to me why these things were hard for him to believe (and, according to him, likely not a thing.) And only recently did he stop giving me the eye roll when I mentioned anything related to Q. And this only stopped when he found out his close friend, now retired from the FBI, has a dog named Q.
You're right, though. It's a silly argument and I shouldn't have allowed it to lose my cool.