5 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

So you answered my question YOU would follow a madman into an illegal war !! SAD !!!

1) He is probably nuts 2) Who decides the orders are illegal? You? 3) What are the consequences of not following orders for active duty service members? You were in the Navy so you would know the consequences of insurbordination while on active duty. Right? It's not like a teenager at McDonalds who disobeys a shift supervisors orders. The consequences are severe for an act of insurbordinatin for active duty military members.

16 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

1) He is probably nuts 2) Who decides the orders are illegal? You? 3) What are the consequences of not following orders for active duty service members? You were in the Navy so you would know the consequences of insurbordination while on active duty. Right? It's not like a teenager at McDonalds who disobeys a shift supervisors orders. The consequences are severe for an act of insurbordinatin for active duty military members.

1 He is NUTS !! 2 in usa i belive its congres/ your beliefs/ international law/ 1. Constitution (Article VI): The Constitution is the supreme law, so military loyalty is to the Constitution above any individual. 2. Military Oath: Service members must obey only lawful orders as required by the Constitution and UCMJ. 3. UCMJ: Military law explicitly requires obeying lawful orders and refusing unlawful orders. 4. Nuremberg Principle: “Just following orders” is not a defense for carrying out illegal or unconstitutional commands. 5. Bottom Line: U.S. troops have a legal duty to refuse unconstitutional or illegal orders. 3 well aware

51 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

1 He is NUTS !! 2 in usa i belive its congres/ your beliefs/ international law/ 1. Constitution (Article VI): The Constitution is the supreme law, so military loyalty is to the Constitution above any individual. 2. Military Oath: Service members must obey only lawful orders as required by the Constitution and UCMJ. 3. UCMJ: Military law explicitly requires obeying lawful orders and refusing unlawful orders. 4. Nuremberg Principle: “Just following orders” is not a defense for carrying out illegal or unconstitutional commands. 5. Bottom Line: U.S. troops have a legal duty to refuse unconstitutional or illegal orders. 3 well aware

You did not answer the key question: Who decides whether or not an order is lawful or not? So now you are comparing all service members who obey orders to Nazi's? Great logic. It is not a simple matter. UCMJ also prescribes consequences of disobeying orders as well. No service member is loyal to POTUS. He or she is swears to the following: 1) Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies , foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of the President and superior officers. Unless you served in the US military you would have never swore to such an oath. Therefore, what first hand knowledge do you have about the serving in the US military. I know virtually nothing about serving in any other countries military.

10 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

You did not answer the key question: Who decides whether or not an order is lawful or not? So now you are comparing all service members who obey orders to Nazi's? Great logic. It is not a simple matter. UCMJ also prescribes consequences of disobeying orders as well. No service member is loyal to POTUS. He or she is swears to the following: 1) Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies , foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of the President and superior officers. Unless you served in the US military you would have never swore to such an oath. Therefore, what first hand do you have about the serving in the US military. I know virtually nothing about serving in any other countries military.

I belive i did answer you question item 2 i have never said anything about first hand knowledge of serving in the us but i know what is right !! and only madmen would follow trump into an illegaly and imoral war he is putting lives at risk for What !!!!! i certanly would not do that !!

1 minute ago, MikeandDow said:

I belive i did answer you question item 2 i have never said anything about first hand knowledge of serving in the us but i know what is right !! and only madmen would follow trump into an illegaly and imoral war he is putting lives at risk for What !!!!! i certanly would not do that !!

So now I am mad. Another pearl of wisdom. No you did not answer the question. Who decides the orders given by the CIC is lawful or not? Service members are not following a "madman" into an illegal war. They are fullfilling their military service obligations. The other option would be to apply for conscientious objector status. This would be difficult to achieve. There were some CO's during WWII and many during the Vietnam War. One of the most famous was Cassius Clay (AKA Muhammad Ali). Ali went to prison to uphold his beliefs and did not flee to Canada. For that I have always had the upmost of respect for him. Let's see how many active US service members refuse orders to deploy or even apply for CO status. What you suggest for active US service members to do is "easier said then done".

2 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

So now I am mad. Another pearl of wisdom. No you did not answer the question. Who decides the orders given by the CIC is lawful or not? Service members are not following a "madmen" into an illegal war. They are fullfilling their military service obligations. The other option would be to apply for conscientious objector status. This would be difficult to achieve. There were some CO's during WWII and many during the Vietnam War. One of the most famous was Cassius Clay (AKA Muhammad Ali). Ali went to prison to uphold his beliefs and did not flee to Canada. For that I have always had the upmost of respect for him. Let's see how many active US service members refuse orders to deploy or even apply for CO status. What you suggest for active US service members to do is "easier said then done".

Sorry to say if you follow a madman into war you are to a degree Mad !! and i did answer you question here it is again, in usa i belive its congres/ your beliefs/ international law/ 1. Constitution (Article VI): The Constitution is the supreme law, so military loyalty is to the Constitution above any individual. 2. Military Oath: Service members must obey only lawful orders as required by the Constitution and UCMJ. 3. UCMJ: Military law explicitly requires obeying lawful orders and refusing unlawful orders. 4. Nuremberg Principle: “Just following orders” is not a defense for carrying out illegal or unconstitutional commands. 5. Bottom Line: U.S. troops have a legal duty to refuse unconstitutional or illegal orders.

Posts of low value have been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

4 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Sorry to say if you follow a madman into war you are to a degree Mad !! and i did answer you question here it is again, in usa i belive its congres/ your beliefs/ international law/ 1. Constitution (Article VI): The Constitution is the supreme law, so military loyalty is to the Constitution above any individual. 2. Military Oath: Service members must obey only lawful orders as required by the Constitution and UCMJ. 3. UCMJ: Military law explicitly requires obeying lawful orders and refusing unlawful orders. 4. Nuremberg Principle: “Just following orders” is not a defense for carrying out illegal or unconstitutional commands. 5. Bottom Line: U.S. troops have a legal duty to refuse unconstitutional or illegal orders.

Why say sorry? Who decides the legality or constitutionality of any military order? You? Me? Anyone? This is the question that will be tested when a service members refuses to obey the orders of a superior officer. This is the point you seem to be not able to comprehend. Let's say a soldier refuses to deploy in support of Operation Epic Fury. The soldier is then arrested by military police and is advised of his or her Article 31 rights under the UCMJ. The soldier is then confined until a military trial occurs. The jury in military trials is composed of three officers of higher rank. So the soldiers sole defense is the "Commander In Chief is a madman and I refuse to obey his order". This would probably result in a quick conviction. You offer little to support any active service member to refuse orders of the CIC. "he is a madman" does not fly. Specific examples of where any CIC order is illegal has to be proven in a court of law. Disagreeing with the orders of the CIC does not legally fly.

5 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Sorry to say if you follow a madman into war you are to a degree Mad !! and i did answer you question here it is again, in usa i belive its congres/ your beliefs/ international law/ 1. Constitution (Article VI): The Constitution is the supreme law, so military loyalty is to the Constitution above any individual. 2. Military Oath: Service members must obey only lawful orders as required by the Constitution and UCMJ. 3. UCMJ: Military law explicitly requires obeying lawful orders and refusing unlawful orders. 4. Nuremberg Principle: “Just following orders” is not a defense for carrying out illegal or unconstitutional commands. 5. Bottom Line: U.S. troops have a legal duty to refuse unconstitutional or illegal orders.

Let me give you a simple example how what you say could apply in a combat enviornment. Let's say you are an officer given a strike mission with a Tomahawak missle at a building in Terhan but a new satellite image shows a school next to the target. You question this order and refuse to launch the missle because of the threat of civilain casualties. Your superior could relieve you of your duties and order your arrest. But no decent offcier would do such a thing but I do not know abou the CIC. Is this simple enough for you to understand my point.

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

Let me give you a simple example how what you say could apply in a combat enviornment. Let's say you are an officer given a strike mission with a Tomahawak missle at a building in Terhan but a new satellite image shows a school next to the target. You question this order and refuse to launch the missle because of the threat of civilain casualties. Your superior could relieve you of your duties and order your arrest. But no decent offcier would do such a thing but I do not know abou the CIC. Is this simple enough for you to understand my point.

The point is the question is not black or white it all depends on the individual and his conscious, there has been a lot of CO over the years !! would i object if i was in a situation I honestly dont Know !! all i can say is iam against this illegal war and against the madman trump

3 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

The point is the question is not black or white it all depends on the individual and his conscious, there has been a lot of CO over the years !! would i object if i was in a situation I honestly dont Know !! all i can say is iam against this illegal war and against the madman trump

In some cases CO's have applied relgious reasons. Quakers during WWII refused to take up arms. Some were allowed to serve as medics or in other non combat arms positions. Presently I firmly believe a service members who can prove he or she is astrict observer of Muslim beliefs and practics could refuse to serve in any position that directly supports attacks on Iran. I also believe any service member of Iranian heritage could do the same. The simple argument would be "I do not want to participate in the killing of my brothers and sisters".

7 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

The point is the question is not black or white it all depends on the individual and his conscious, there has been a lot of CO over the years !! would i object if i was in a situation I honestly dont Know !! all i can say is iam against this illegal war and against the madman trump

"against this illegal war and against the madman" would qualify as reasons to not obey orders of superior officers. Only the JCS-Joint Chiefs of Staff recieve direct orders from the CIC(Trump). All other service members recieve orders from superior officers.

4 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

In some cases CO's have applied relgious reasons. Quakers during WWII refused to take up arms. Some were allowed to serve as medics or in other non combat arms positions. Presently I firmly believe a service members who can prove he or she is astrict observer of Muslim beliefs and practics could refuse to serve in any position that directly supports attacks on Iran. I also believe any service member of Iranian heritage could do the same. The simple argument would be "I do not want to participate in the killing of my brothers and sisters".

You would be correct

On 3/15/2026 at 4:55 PM, stevenl said:

LOL. What is my position according to you?

Anti white

Anti Jew

Anti American

A self loathing nihilist seeking to ruin what others have built

You asked…

12 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

You did not answer the key question: Who decides whether or not an order is lawful or not? So now you are comparing all service members who obey orders to Nazi's? Great logic. It is not a simple matter. UCMJ also prescribes consequences of disobeying orders as well. No service member is loyal to POTUS. He or she is swears to the following: 1) Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies , foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of the President and superior officers. Unless you served in the US military you would have never swore to such an oath. Therefore, what first hand knowledge do you have about the serving in the US military. I know virtually nothing about serving in any other countries military.

Members of the US military have a duty to not follow "manifestly unlawful" orders

Army Doctrine 101

https://talent.army.mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ARN20039_ADP-6-22-C1-FINAL-WEB.pdf

Soldiers are bound to obey the legal and moral orders of their superiors; but they must disobey an unlawful or immoral order.

Of course soldiers might not know what is an unlawful order, but they will know about manifestly unlawful ones. Examples are given in the card they are all given on the Geneva Convention.

If your superior ordered you to shoot the prisoner of war, you'd know that's manifestly unlawful. If your superior ordered you to rape women in the village, you'd know that's not only illegal but also immoral. And the point it, if you did these things, you cannot use the excuse of superior orders to determine innocence. At best, its mitigation ie. "yes I raped the prisoners, but the other threatened to kill me if I didn't", might reduce your sentence, but you are still guilty of a war crime.

This was the controversy behind My Lai. Calley used the Superior Orders defence, because he believed that order to rape and execute the villagers was legal.

In most countries, a Nuremburg defence of "following orders" is not valid. US military law is more vague. Its (superior order defence) allowed, except when the prosecution can show that the defendant knew the order to be illegal. So the example would be that members of the military are instructed, in general, of their rights and obligations under the Geneva Convention; they can refuse orders to work, they don't have to divulge many details about their service, and they probably know that if someone tries to beat information out of them, that person is breaking some law. There are "pesky ROEs" which also help frame for the soldier what they can do, and what they can't do. Not following the ROE doesn't mean you are suddenly a war criminal, but following the ROE is a pretty good start (even if the ROE contains instruction that is legally dubious, you will have a defence that it wasn't obviously illegal to you).

Soldiers do get a lot of instruction on the so-called laws of warfare. I was schooled by a warrant officer on the details of the Convention, when I suggested that a bit of kit I designed and fielded could be abandoned with the help of a grenade. A grenade would have scattered a certain banned munition across a field, which would then have to be cleaned up, using a process that might, based on precedence, take 50 years.

So soldiers do have a pretty good sense of an illegal order. So they are not obliged to obey all orders, and in fact they are obliged to disobey illegal orders, such as executing civilians, torturing a surrendered prisoners of war, denying medical treatment to fallen combatants, taking hostages, mutilation of prisoners, protecting POWs from public curiousity (ie. the Ukrainians were breaking the Geneva convention by posting on Youtube interviews with Russian POWs). All these things are obvious, because you know these things from the Geneva card.

War risk insurance for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz have surged dramatically since the start of the Iran War.

Marco Forgione, the director of the UK-based Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade, noted that while coverage was briefly withdrawn, premiums have risen by 200% to 300%, which is unsustainable to maintain long-term.

Before the crisis, war-risk insurance for a vessel passing through the Gulf would be at 0.02% to 0.05% of the vessel's value.

Since the start of hostilities, premiums have reportedly jumped to 0.5% to 1% of the vessel's value, or even more.

It means that for a tanker valued at $120mn a normal premium of approximately $40,000 would now cost between $600,000 and $1.2mn for a single trip.

Hormuz becomes world's most expensive waterway after 300% surge in risk premiums

10 hours ago, EastBayRay said:

Anti white

Anti Jew

Anti American

A self loathing nihilist seeking to ruin what others have built

You asked…

Thanks for the laugh. Sadly i think you're serious, showing a real lack of perception of other people's thoughts.