In meeting with military, Trump talks of 'calm before the storm'

[Srikcir]

26 minutes ago, Publicus said:

In the USA the power to declare war is vested in the Congress

To "declare war" - yes.

To mobilize the military against a foreign power - no to some extent.

 

War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President to commit armed forces to military action for up to more than 60 days without a Congressional authorization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Possible_repeal

In terms of nuclear and non-nuclear attacks, 60 days is a lifetime.

 

Recently Rep. Sen. Rand Paul attempted to repeal the WPR but defeated 61 to 36.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/war-powers-aumf-rand-paul-senate-242662

This curb on Presidential power has never been tested in Court, ie., as to its constitutionality. It is notable that President Clinton allegedly violated the law with military action in Kosovo in 1999, but no legal action was taken against him.

 

[Golgota]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

This is NOT Thailand and military will do as they are told. Any more provocation and I think they should do a limited strike. Take out those scum before he gets even stronger.

You think it is easy? Kim will use quite quickly nuclear and chemical weapons on Guam SK and Japan at the first strike. A limited strike will just start a war.. This is not a solution. If USA strike first China said it will protect NK.

[LannaGuy]

6 minutes ago, Golgota said:

You think it is easy? Kim will use quite quickly nuclear and chemical weapons on Guam SK and Japan at the first strike. A limited strike will just start a war.. This is not a solution. If USA strike first China said it will protect NK.

 

If NK fires again over or near Japan your solution is what?  there will be no war after a limited strike (and China will not fight)  as Kim and his entourage will be dead and the people of NK will rise up.  

[Golgota]

Just now, LannaGuy said:

 

If NK fires again over or near Japan your solution is what?  there will be no war after a limited strike (and China will not fight)  as Kim and his entourage will be dead and the people of NK will rise up.  

Yes cause the past intelligence shown they have no clues to where Kim can be and a limited strike will still enable a full response from NK army.... Your idea of limited stike is coming from movies, not reality

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.  

 

[riclag]

Twitter Man inherited a mess

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Twitter Man inherited a mess

He is the one making the mess.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

There have been many instances of executive power being used in US if there is a direct threat. You are wrong. Nor do i believe that any General or Admiral would disobey the President.

 

Your last sentence is just foolish. Military OBEY lawful orders and it is not for them to decide how 'wise' or 'sane' they are period.

 

Potus does not have the Constitutional authority to launch a first use nuclear strike against North Korea. His only Constitutional means is to gain the specific approval of the Congress. Without the authorization of the Congress Potus would be violating his oath of office and subject to the consequences.

 

 

USMC Special Operations Commander Colonel Andrew L. Milburn argues in the official journal of the National Defense University that officers have the moral duty and the professional obligation by their commission and their oath to disobey a legal order from the President/Commander in Chief. The circumstances would be specific....


A survey conducted among students at the Marine Corps War College (MCWAR) represents a cross section of 20 senior field-grade officers from all Services and two foreign countries. Without exception, they agreed that there are circumstances under which they would disobey a lawful order.

* "If the officer cannot live with obeying the order, then he must disobey and accept the consequences."
* "When I cannot look at myself in the mirror afterwards."
* "When I deem the order to be immoral."
* "When it is going to lead to mission failure."
* "When it will get someone injured or killed needlessly."
* "When it will cause military or institutional disaster."

https://www.army.mil/article/47175/b...-professional/

These comments reflect the view that the military professional has professional obligations that are more fundamental than obedience and loyalty to their leaders, civilian or military.

The term military professional applies to military officers only. Enlisted Personnel to include of course non-commissioned officers are excluded from the professional standards of the officer. EP have their own professional standards.

So as articulated by General Mark Milley who is Army Chief of Staff, a "disciplined disobedience" is the exclusive domain of the officer. This is due to the nature of the officer's professional military education, which focuses on developing an abstract body of knowledge; his/her code of ethics, which reflect the "special trust and confidence" conferred on him by the President and Congress in his commission; and his oath of office, which differs significantly from the enlisted oath. These defining characteristics of the military profession impose on the officer professional obligations that go beyond obedience. 

I note that Colonel Milburn earned a B.A. in Philosophy from London University and a law degree from Polytechnic of Central London. He enlisted in USMC in 1987.

Colonel Milburn and Gen. Milley among other senior officers represent a developing school of thought among the officer corps of the U.S. armed forces. It is a 'school' populated by military and civilians alike to include high military commanders civilian experts on the military. No one of the philosophy has said but the implication is clear: U.S. military senior commanders would be justified to refuse an order by Potus Trump to initiate "first use" of nuclear weapons against North Korea. While the U.S. does maintain its policy option to execute a first use ("all options are on the table"), it would be catastrophic for the United States if Potus Trump became the first to implement the first use policy since 1945. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Publicus

[Golgota]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

If NK fires again over or near Japan your solution is what?  there will be no war after a limited strike (and China will not fight)  as Kim and his entourage will be dead and the people of NK will rise up.  

Having a population brainwashed for 3 generation by propaganda which can be summarized by : the USA want to destroy us,  guess what will happen when this will be proved right..the people of NK will see Kim was right and they will fight the invaders. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Golgota said:

You think it is easy? Kim will use quite quickly nuclear and chemical weapons on Guam SK and Japan at the first strike. A limited strike will just start a war.. This is not a solution. If USA strike first China said it will protect NK.

 

The PRC said nothing as decisive as that. Not officially, anyway. And very doubtful they will risk getting into a full blown war just to save Kim's regime. The "no good solutions" stands for the PRC as well.

 

40 minutes ago, Golgota said:

Having a population brainwashed for 3 generation by propaganda which can be summarized by : the USA want to destroy us,  guess what will happen when this will be proved right..the people of NK will see Kim was right and they will fight the invaders. 

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Turning it into another mantra will not make it a fact. Not a general rule that people ruled by dictators will fight to the death in order to preserve them. On the other hand, most dictators are pretty good at culling capable mid and upper level leadership, for survival consideration. A scenario such as you describe is perhaps more tied with civilian casualties, rather than direct attacks on Kim's regime and armed forces.

 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

There have been many instances of executive power being used in US if there is a direct threat. You are wrong. Nor do i believe that any General or Admiral would disobey the President.

 

Your last sentence is just foolish. Military OBEY lawful orders and it is not for them to decide how 'wise' or 'sane' they are period.

After how Trump treated the military leaders recently, they may have little desire to follow inappropriate orders from him. In the past, with presidents they trusted, its absolutely possible they'd follow orders.  Times have changed.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

He is the one making the mess.

It was a mess but he's throwing nuclear gasoline on the mess. 

 

 

Sad. 

[Golgota]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The PRC said nothing as decisive as that. Not officially, anyway. And very doubtful they will risk getting into a full blown war just to save Kim's regime. The "no good solutions" stands for the PRC as well.

 

 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Turning it into another mantra will not make it a fact. Not a general rule that people ruled by dictators will fight to the death in order to preserve them. On the other hand, most dictators are pretty good at culling capable mid and upper level leadership, for survival consideration. A scenario such as you describe is perhaps more tied with civilian casualties, rather than direct attacks on Kim's regime and armed forces.

 

But one more time in case of war triggered by tangerine#45, the ones who will suffer the war and its aftermath will be the north korean, the south korean and japan..not the moron in charge of the USA

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Golgota said:

But one more time in case of war triggered by tangerine#45, the ones who will suffer the war and its aftermath will be the north korean, the south korean and japan..not the moron in charge of the USA

 

Leaders do not normally face the most dire consequences of their actions. That's not unique to Trump. Would be a wee bit more credible complaint if similar sentiments were expressed whenever Kim goes on one of his tirades, Not holding my breath, though.

[Golgota]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Leaders do not normally face the most dire consequences of their actions. That's not unique to Trump. Would be a wee bit more credible complaint if similar sentiments were expressed whenever Kim goes on one of his tirades, Not holding my breath, though.

To be honest your rethoric based on "I am the wise guy on this board" is a bite tiresome as what you say is just your opinion, like everybody else here, so let's agree to disagree..

Never said kim was the one right here, just saying trump is playing a dangerous game which is not constructive and it seems most of the world leaders tend to agree with the ones saying Tangerine#45 rethoric put millions of lives at stake, but you will probably come with your expertise to tell me i am wrong and I am one sided

[LannaGuy]

46 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

After how Trump treated the military leaders recently, they may have little desire to follow inappropriate orders from him. In the past, with presidents they trusted, its absolutely possible they'd follow orders.  Times have changed.

 

Well let's hope we never have to find out but I think most senior officers have a very strong code of 'follow orders' and it's unthinkable that any would treasonably disobey a lawful command from CiC. 

[riclag]

What administration appeased north korea?

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, Golgota said:

To be honest your rethoric based on "I am the wise guy on this board" is a bite tiresome as what you say is just your opinion, like everybody else here, so let's agree to disagree..

Never said kim was the one right here, just saying trump is playing a dangerous game which is not constructive and it seems most of the world leaders tend to agree with the ones saying Tangerine#45 rethoric put millions of lives at stake, but you will probably come with your expertise to tell me i am wrong and I am one sided

 

Yeah, kinda noticed you going on about Trump. In length. Not so much when it comes to Kim. As Trump's statements are not made in a vacuum, but are rather related to Kim's own words and actions, ignoring one and highlighting the other amounts to pretty much what I posted above.

 

Most world leaders actually commented on both Kim's and Trump's use of inflammatory rhetoric. Most countries are, in fact, opposed to Kim's nuclear ambitions.

 

You're one sided.

[Golgota]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, kinda noticed you going on about Trump. In length. Not so much when it comes to Kim. As Trump's statements are not made in a vacuum, but are rather related to Kim's own words and actions, ignoring one and highlighting the other amounts to pretty much what I posted above.

 

Most world leaders actually commented on both Kim's and Trump's use of inflammatory rhetoric. Most countries are, in fact, opposed to Kim's nuclear ambitions.

 

You're one sided.

Same comment can be applied to you about Trump.

You elude most of the comments which do not suit your rethoric.

most of the countries oppose nuclear ambitions but even more about Trump attitide.

The biggest threat nowdays is Trump, not kim.. You do not like it but it is a fact the world agrees on.

Kim does not tweet or shoot stupid things on daily basis, but please shower us with your wisdom.. You would be a perfect guru for a sect as long as nobody oppose your views

Your one sided comments and over inflated ego do not help to mark your points.

 

 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Golgota said:

To be honest your rethoric based on "I am the wise guy on this board" is a bite tiresome as what you say is just your opinion, like everybody else here, so let's agree to disagree..

Never said kim was the one right here, just saying trump is playing a dangerous game which is not constructive and it seems most of the world leaders tend to agree with the ones saying Tangerine#45 rethoric put millions of lives at stake, but you will probably come with your expertise to tell me i am wrong and I am one sided

"it seems most of the world leaders tend to agree with the ones saying Tangerine#45 rethoric put millions of lives at stake"

 

Twitterman and his administration do not support appeasement which prior administration have done or give in to threat's.He will fire back with words and action when provoked. Don't forget he has intel most don't have .

Edited October 8, 2017 by riclag

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Golgota said:

Same comment can be applied to you about Trump.

You elude most of the comments which do not suit your rethoric.

most of the countries oppose nuclear ambitions but even more about Trump attitide.

The biggest threat nowdays is Trump, not kim.. You do not like it but it is a fact the world agrees on.

Kim does not tweet or shoot stupid things on daily basis, but please shower us with your wisdom.. You would be a perfect guru for a sect as long as nobody oppose your views

Your one sided comments and over inflated ego do not help to mark your points.

 

 

 

Hardly so. I have posted my views on Trump's rhetoric and "policies" quite often on these topics and others - and they are almost uniformly critical. That I don't see it as an either/or thing, is true. Trump being an idiot doesn't make Kim any better, and vice versa.

 

No idea by which standard you measure such things as "most of the countries oppose nuclear ambitions but even more about Trump attitude". So far, neither Trump, nor the USA, are under international sanctions, as opposed to NK. I don't recall many world leaders even saying Trump is the bigger threat, despite your claims that it is a "fact that the world agrees on". If it is, indeed, such a non-disputable fact it should be easy to demonstrate.

 

Kim makes a whole lot of outrageous statements related to the context of the topic. That Trump tweets a whole lot more, gets more coverage and that his absurd statements cover more issues is true enough. How does it make much of a difference as to the topic at hand isn't too clear.

 

Your inability to deliver a point without resorting to personal comments is pathetic, and does not indicate arguments which carry much strength.

 

 

[Golgota]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Hardly so. I have posted my views on Trump's rhetoric and "policies" quite often on these topics and others - and they are almost uniformly critical. That I don't see it as an either/or thing, is true. Trump being an idiot doesn't make Kim any better, and vice versa.

 

No idea by which standard you measure such things as "most of the countries oppose nuclear ambitions but even more about Trump attitude". So far, neither Trump, nor the USA, are under international sanctions, as opposed to NK. I don't recall many world leaders even saying Trump is the bigger threat, despite your claims that it is a "fact that the world agrees on". If it is, indeed, such a non-disputable fact it should be easy to demonstrate.

 

Kim makes a whole lot of outrageous statements related to the context of the topic. That Trump tweets a whole lot more, gets more coverage and that his absurd statements cover more issues is true enough. How does it make much of a difference as to the topic at hand isn't too clear.

 

Your inability to deliver a point without resorting to personal comments is pathetic, and does not indicate arguments which carry much strength.

 

 

Why should i bother to try to have a discussion with you anymore because every answer you make look like you are the only one with the "real answer" and anyone who contradict you is either an ignorant or have a biased view...

I made numerous posts without attacking you but each time your answer is at best condescending or you just say : you will not agree witb me because your point is useless or false.. So please from now on refrain to answer me and "teach the truth" to other posters, i will do the same.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Golgota said:

Why should i bother to try to have a discussion with you anymore because every answer you make look like you are the only one with the "real answer" and anyone who contradict you is either an ignorant or have a biased view...

I made numerous posts without attacking you but each time your answer is at best condescending or you just say : you will not agree witb me because your point is useless or false.. So please from now on refrain to answer me and "teach the truth" to other posters, i will do the same.

 

Your posts include statements which are presented as facts. Whenever these are challenged or pointed out, the reply includes more unsupported statements and personal remarks. And no, I do not claim to have a "real answer" - many of my posts actually address that there are no simple answers.

 

There's an easy to use ignore function, you're welcome to make the most of it.

[Publicus]

5 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Well let's hope we never have to find out but I think most senior officers have a very strong code of 'follow orders' and it's unthinkable that any would treasonably disobey a lawful command from CiC. 

 

The military officer oath is to the Constitution only.

 

Potus is not in the military officer oath -- no one is in the military officer oath. This is by the design of the Founders. The Founders wanted the officer corps of the armed forces to have their loyalty to the three branches of the government, not to any one man or any single official. Washington's oath written for the Continental Army and Navy in 1777 was to the thirteen states assembled in the Continental Congress -- only (Washington being appointed by same). 

 

The title of commander in chief that is in the Constitution is an administrative position and nothing more. It makes Potus chief executive of the armed forces too. However, it does not make Potus a general or an admiral, nor does it make Potus/CinC Caesar and it certainly does not allow for a Caligula. 

 

Officers learn this while cadets at West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs and at USCGA New London CT. It is a part of the curriculum in university Rotc and at the private military academies such as Citadel, VMI, Texas A&M, Norwich and the many others. 

 

The Founders were explicit that military officers not be bound to any one official of the government, namely, Potus. The Founders feared tyranny in one man, one person, one official. The oath of the military officer to the Constitution only is a bulwark against this occurrence conceived and designed by the Founders.

 

Yes, there are officers in the armed forces who see Potus as literally commander in chief and who give him their supreme and ultimate loyalty and obedience. These officers are few however and it may well be they miss the entire point of the Framers. The vast majority of military officers rather know that Potus/CinC is not their supreme potentate plenipotentiary regal highness lord chancellor and absolute ruler. Military officers' loyalty is to the Constitution and they know this. Military officers are dedicated to the three branches of the republican government.  Period.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Publicus
Putin as Trump's First Consul???

[Publicus]

13 hours ago, Srikcir said:

To "declare war" - yes.

To mobilize the military against a foreign power - no to some extent.

 

War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President to commit armed forces to military action for up to more than 60 days without a Congressional authorization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Possible_repeal

In terms of nuclear and non-nuclear attacks, 60 days is a lifetime.

 

Recently Rep. Sen. Rand Paul attempted to repeal the WPR but defeated 61 to 36.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/war-powers-aumf-rand-paul-senate-242662

This curb on Presidential power has never been tested in Court, ie., as to its constitutionality. It is notable that President Clinton allegedly violated the law with military action in Kosovo in 1999, but no legal action was taken against him.

 

 

Of course.

 

Several times since 1973 members of the House have filed suit in federal court to stop the Potus executing provisions of the WPR as approved by Congress or not approved by Congress. Scotus has thrown out every suit. Scotus said it is indeed a Constitutional question but the answer(s) are provided by Congress and the Executive Branch. War and peace are not within the realm of Scotus to determine or decide. 

 

The bottom line is the WPR is Congressional action informing Potus what he can or can't do with the military, why, and under specified conditions to include timeframes. Yes Congress could have impeached Clinton over Kosovo and yes again it did not, but only because impeachment would have been a serious Constitutional undertaking with legacy issues of war and peace. It is indeed up to Congress to act or not to act in war or peace.

 

Congress has specifically granted Potus power to commit armed forces or Congress has ceded by inaction powers to Potus to engage military forces. Just about the only thing everyone accepts or, more accurately expects, is that Potus has authority to launch a massive retaliation in the event of a full first strike of nuclear weapons inbound against the United States.

 

Recall also Potus/CinC nominates the most senior military and naval commanders whose appointment is determined by vote of the Senate. When generals and admirals appear before the Senate for their nomination hearings they are responding to their Constitutional appointing authority. Bottom line is that If the Senate were to vote to appoint me commanding general of something I'd know who provides the bucks for my paycheck and who appointed me. Congress did not impeach Truman when he fired McArthur because Congress knew Truman was right to fire him. Had Congress decided instead to impeach Truman then Truman would have found himself impeached -- etc.

 

Moreover, the Senate and the House vote on the promotion of every officer from lowly lieutenant to four-star commander. This makes each officer of the armed forces appointed to his rank by the authority of the people through their representatives in Congress. Potus is a bystander administrator only. Potus is in fact CEO of paperwork to include paperclips. Lots of it.

 

 

A Senate committee has refused to approve a promotion to admiral for a Navy officer.

 

The Senate Armed Service Committee took no confirmation vote on the nomination of Capt. Timothy W. Dorsey. Because the Senate did not act, the nomination goes back to the White House. The Navy has the option of trying to resubmit his nomination.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/3/senate-balks-at-promotion-for-navy-officer-who-sho/

Edited October 8, 2017 by Publicus
It's a republic ma'm.

[Rimmer]

Some off topic bickering and baiting posts have been removed