billd766 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 3 hours ago, Boon Mee said: That 'general' needs to be fired. For what? Telling the truth? He is correct in what he says and a voice of sanity in an ocean of blabbertalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Dagnabbit said: Fake post - "It's been said for 20 months"... Reality - it was said once... Still, dont let the truth get in the way of a good rant... Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk And now let's read. What did boomeranging say 'it's been said for 20 months'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 4 hours ago, Boon Mee said: That 'general' needs to be fired. For refusing to obey an illegal order? You need to examine your logic a bit closer rather than just supporting Trump no matter what he does. Kinda bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Dagnabbit said: Fake post - "It's been said for 20 months"... Reality - it was said once... Still, dont let the truth get in the way of a good rant... Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk Hardly a rant. Boomer is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChouDoufu Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 totally scripted response by the general, approved by the white house, inline with sop. you think the white house and pentagram would be unprepared to answer a question they would have known was on the agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Some posters on here think Trump can be told 'no.' Trump has a history of getting his way. He's very persuasive. Even people who have been fired by him (there are about 20 from the WH since January) tend to support the buttplug the US is saddled with as prez. It's like a mafia family: If you're a member, you put all your silly ideas about morals and 'what's right' in the trash can, and concentrate only on pure devotion to the chief Don. Re: pre-emptive strike: Trump won't do it with nukes. The US has an impressive armory of non-nuke weapons which could turn NK or Iran into a black slag pile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 The General is a patriot who has acknowledged that the US military does not blindly follow orders. I have always been aware that should Trump order a first strike on any country that there would be opposition and the possibility that the military would not carry out the order as it may be an illegal order. For example- a superior officer cannot order the killing of a group of unarmed civilians even in wartime. This has already been proven in Vietnam when there were convictions because of what happened at My Lai, Vietnam in 1968. As far as Trump knowing the nuclear release codes- he doesn't. these codes are located in what is called the 'nuclear football'- a case in the hands of a trusted official who is always with the President. Within that case is the protocols necessary to order a launch. What to me is unprecedented is that there are doubts that Donald Trump is rational and can make rational decisions based upon the recommendations of trusted advisors and the US Command . Trump does not project a calm demeanor and that leads to doubts which in itself is dangerous for both foreign and domestic foes and friends. People like the General make sense and provide a calming influence. Undoubtedly, the worst President in American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptHaddock Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Amazing to me that people believe what this general says just because he says so. I find it telling that he apparently cited no examples of senior military leadership refusing an illegal order from the president or from anyone else? The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were the making if illegal, aggressive war which is against the charter of the UN to which the US is a signatory. The invasions of Panama and Grenada were illegal. The treatment of prisoners of war at the Abu Ghraib prison was illegal. When did we ever hear about a soldier disobeying an unlawful order? This guy is ridiculous. What is the highest decoration a soldier can receive for courageously disobeying an illegal order? Oh, there isn't any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rancid Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Personally I find it reassuring that the guy in charge of nukes isn't a yes man ready to bring life on earth to end at the whim of some corrupt politician. It's long been suggested there are elements in the US military not entirely happy with what has been going on, which may explain some of the purges that occurred, replacing the competent with the yes sirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 There is a big difference from refusing to initiate a nuclear war and the invasion of a country for a reason related to national security. While I firmly believe the Iraq War was a huge mistake and the expansion of the Afghan war a useless exercise- there was ample leadup to the invasions and ample evidence presented (some not credible in the long run) that America had a right to protect its national interest. In addition, both of these invasions came after 9-11 which has traumatized the American public like no incident except Pearl Harbor. We can also condemn the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Russian invasion of the Crimea but the Russians saw this in their national interests. I seriously doubt that there would be many publicised incidents of American officers refusing to obey an order they consider illegal. However, that doesn't mean it has never happened. As I mentioned, the Vietnam War produced convictions of Officers who did follow an order which was deemed illegal and opened the whole subject up to debate. High ranking officers are provided extensive training and education on the rules of War; the International law; and the United Nations. IMHO- starting a nuclear war in which millions die and an escalation that threatens World stability is a much graver situation than a conventional attack. With a conventional attack- forces can be withdrawn. Once the bomb explodes- there is no turning back. I cannot think of a scenario in which a nuclear first strike would be warranted and if Trump ordered it- I doubt the General(s) would comply as the order would be illegal. I hope we never get to that point nor do I envision even a conventional first strike by the US, except under the most extreme circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atyclb Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 3 hours ago, boomerangutang said: It's been said, for 20 months, that Trump can do anything (Trump himself said; "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and I wouldn't lose any fans") and his die-hard fans will still stand behind him. Boon Mee's post backs that up. Trump can sexually assault over a dozen women, brag about it, and his fans have no problems with that. It gets one to wonder; what could Trump do which would turn off his die-hard fans? Rape Ivanka on the WH lawn? Nuke Scandinavia? I bet if trump joined the tv forum his die hard fans would disown him en mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srikcir Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 5 hours ago, rooster59 said: "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He'll put the US Attorney General Sessions who will say, "Yes it's legal." Followed by Trump, "Obey my command." Trump may have questionable agendas and a megalomaniac but he's not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amvet Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 4 hours ago, boomerangutang said: It's been said, for 20 months, that Trump can do anything (Trump himself said; "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and I wouldn't lose any fans") and his die-hard fans will still stand behind him. Boon Mee's post backs that up. Trump can sexually assault over a dozen women, brag about it, and his fans have no problems with that. It gets one to wonder; what could Trump do which would turn off his die-hard fans? Rape Ivanka on the WH lawn? Nuke Scandinavia? If he was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women to include rape, groping without consent; and exposing himself and sexual harassment and having an affair with a young intern in the Oval office and lying about those things under oath I'd turn on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptHaddock Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, Thaidream said: There is a big difference from refusing to initiate a nuclear war and the invasion of a country for a reason related to national security. While I firmly believe the Iraq War was a huge mistake and the expansion of the Afghan war a useless exercise- there was ample leadup to the invasions and ample evidence presented (some not credible in the long run) that America had a right to protect its national interest. In addition, both of these invasions came after 9-11 which has traumatized the American public like no incident except Pearl Harbor. We can also condemn the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Russian invasion of the Crimea but the Russians saw this in their national interests. I seriously doubt that there would be many publicised incidents of American officers refusing to obey an order they consider illegal. However, that doesn't mean it has never happened. As I mentioned, the Vietnam War produced convictions of Officers who did follow an order which was deemed illegal and opened the whole subject up to debate. High ranking officers are provided extensive training and education on the rules of War; the International law; and the United Nations. IMHO- starting a nuclear war in which millions die and an escalation that threatens World stability is a much graver situation than a conventional attack. With a conventional attack- forces can be withdrawn. Once the bomb explodes- there is no turning back. I cannot think of a scenario in which a nuclear first strike would be warranted and if Trump ordered it- I doubt the General(s) would comply as the order would be illegal. I hope we never get to that point nor do I envision even a conventional first strike by the US, except under the most extreme circumstance. You're dreaming. People do what they are trained to do and no one knows that better than the military. Soldiers are trained to obey, not to think critically and certainly not to disobey an order. If they all received training about how to recognize an illegal order and how to refuse to carry it out and if their war games exercises included issuing illegal orders and penalizes the soldiers for obeying them uncritically, then you might have some expectation that soldiers might refuse to carry out such an order. But we know that the US military does no such training. The general who refused Trump's order to launch a nuclear attack would be disobeying an order for the first time in his life. There is no way such an untested system could be regarded as reliable. When Ronald Reagan was shot, the Secretary of State Al Haig addressed the nation on TV and couldn't even get the order of succession straight and illegally put himself in command. Haig had been an AF general. If Trump were to give the order, no one knows what would happen. The generals might launch the missiles or they might launch a coup. Up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 You can't make an illegal order- legal simply because another person says it's legal. General Officers who have to carry out orders know full well what is a legal order versus what is not legal. They constantly go over a multitude of scenarios; have access to a wide variety on intelligence assessments (from a variety of Governments) and collaborate on how to respond. I just cannot imagine a nuclear first strike ordered by Trump and opposed by the National Command that would be carried out anyway even if ordered by Trump . They would simply tell him the order is illegal and refuse to follow it. I would also imagine that at that point- the 25th Amendment would come into play and the 'group' would take a vote to remove the President and the Vice President if necessary. That would make the Speaker of the House-President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptHaddock Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Thaidream said: You can't make an illegal order- legal simply because another person says it's legal. General Officers who have to carry out orders know full well what is a legal order versus what is not legal. They constantly go over a multitude of scenarios; have access to a wide variety on intelligence assessments (from a variety of Governments) and collaborate on how to respond. I just cannot imagine a nuclear first strike ordered by Trump and opposed by the National Command that would be carried out anyway even if ordered by Trump . They would simply tell him the order is illegal and refuse to follow it. I would also imagine that at that point- the 25th Amendment would come into play and the 'group' would take a vote to remove the President and the Vice President if necessary. That would make the Speaker of the House-President. Apparently you find that fantasy comforting. Let me remind you: it. has. never. happened. You don't understand the 25th Amendment. Read it before attempting to discuss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 3 hours ago, Dagnabbit said: Spot on! Doesn't stop the media whipping retards into a frenzy over it, though... And there’s the problem.... a story about nothing (other than media sound bites)....we all know that the Nuremberg defense won’t fly 5 hours ago, rooster59 said: And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated." As the general says.... it’s not that complicated. what we should worry about, is countries actually run by dictators, where the generals won’t question the dear leaders commands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChouDoufu Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 but at these pay grades, they are politicians, no longer just soldiers and airmen. career enhancement is more important than legality. they will, within reason and with plausible butt-cover, follow illegal orders. covert ops, invasions, torture, assassination of us citizens without trial, etc. "we've got a memo!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 4 hours ago, Dagnabbit said: Lol @ the desperation of the Trump haters. "General says he'd not jump off a cliff if Trump asked" It's a loaded question. There is no reason to believe it'd happen in the first place. Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk And there's no guarantee that it won't happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Sorry- you do not understand how General Officers operate and work- and they would be the ones to carry out an order made by the President to launch a nuclear strike not some lower ranking officer or enlisted member sitting in a hardened bunker and pushing a button. The Generals' reach that point because they have extensive training in both the military and civilian World and extensive education and are nominated and approved by the US Congress. I have worked with several and have the utmost respect for them as leaders. Their mindset is not as a robot who carries out an order without thinking of the consequences of such an order especially if lives are at risk. As far as General Haig taking command- he never stated he was taking over the Government when Reagan was shot -he was referring to be in temporary charge at the moment while the Vice President was being informed and briefed. General Haig was an Army General who was a former Supreme Commander in Europe and the Vice Chief of the Army. General Haig would never carry out an order he deemed illegal. General Officers do receive training and education as to what is a legal and illegal order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropo Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 4 hours ago, pgrahmm said: All the General really said was a discussion of options & scenarios would have to be brought forward..... This happens routinely & does not mean either man is walking away from the respnsibilities or consequences..... Exactly right! People are taking this way out of context. People are reading "resist" in the title and assuming that means "refuse". Resist merely means discussing it and any possible options. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm sure the president would agree. It's not like the president would wake the general up from a deep sleep and ask him to launch some nuclear warheads. The general would be well appraised of the situation before being asked to "hit the buttons" as he is part of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 (edited) We can debate ad infinitum and I have read the 25th Amendment and it has never happened but what we are discussing is an order to launch a first nuclear strike and the possibility that it might be an illegal order. The 25th Amendment comes into play- you might want to open your mind to the scenario of it being used because an illegal nuclear strike would kill millions of people and the person who ordered and carried it out could end up a war criminal. Edited November 19, 2017 by Thaidream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanemax Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Baerboxer said: Even more dangerous if the General is really saying he'll only obey a President whose political views he agrees with. Raises the question who is really in command. The General is not saying that though . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChouDoufu Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, tropo said: Exactly right! People are taking this way out of context. People are reading "resist" in the title and assuming that means "refuse". .... did the general actually say "resist" in response, or was that the reporter's choice of wording? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanemax Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 This really is a non story . Theres been no new rules or laws made . The non compliant rules about following illegal orders is nothing new . Just add Trump and Nukes into the equation and this somehow becomes news worthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropo Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said: did the general actually say "resist" in response, or was that the reporter's choice of wording? It's breaking news and all the media outlets are using "resist". I imagine that is what he did say. It's probably politically motivated aimed at calming down all the frightened people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 I completely agree that this is not a new issue but with the advent of Donald Trump it has become a current issue. Donald Trump is perceived as being irrational and at times mentally unstable. Since his election- he has made public comments showing the World that he is narcissistic; lacks depth and decorum; and reacts irrationally to slights. We can debate about his policy and whether we support them but this topic is about the potentiality of Trump issuing an illegal order for a nuclear first strike. The General used the word resist- rather than refuse because using the term refuse at this point is too harsh. However, if the Generals' and I mean the Joints Chief of Staff; The Generals' on the National Security Council and those assigned to the NSA and CIA all agreed the launch order was illegal- it would not be carried out. Such a scenario would cause chaos and could be seen as a potential coup but that is why there is a Presidential Order of Succession; a 25th Amendment and a protocol for Impeachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanemax Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Thaidream said: I completely agree that this is not a new issue but with the advent of Donald Trump it has become a current issue. Donald Trump is perceived as being irrational and at times mentally unstable. Since his election- he has made public comments showing the World that he is narcissistic; lacks depth and decorum; and reacts irrationally to slights.. That is just be people who oppose him and who do not like him . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChouDoufu Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, tropo said: It's breaking news and all the media outlets are using "resist". I imagine that is what he did say. It's probably politically motivated aimed at calming down all the frightened people. no.....googled it, read three articles. none have the word "resist" in the body. all have "resist" in the headline. seems one "reporter" added his interpretation, other "news" services picked it up. more media bs, trying to link donald with illegal. Edited November 19, 2017 by ChouDoufu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluespunk Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 6 hours ago, Boon Mee said: That 'general' needs to be fired. Why? He said he wouldn't do anything illegal, if asked to do so? Should all the responsible adults have such a bromance the grand poobah of trumptopia that they ignore the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now