Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

[ABikerSailor]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

You DO realize that F-16's would be useless for close in air support required over there, right? They aren't equipped with weapons that can be fired within 100 ft of friendly troops.

Shoot.................Not even an A-10 would have been able to do the job due to the proximity of the combatants to the friendlies.

The only thing that would have worked would have been a rescue mission with helos and a rescue team. Only trouble is, we didn't have any assets that would have been able to get there in time.

Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime.

 

[mudwhistle]

Funny, but there's a gag-order on the active-duty guys. They aren't allowed to publicly voice their opinions about the Taliban In Chief.
What I get from them is they'd be happy to follow President Trumps' orders, but a bit reluctant to obey the Vagina.

I am sure the senior commanders who are actually concerned about issuing illegal orders are relieved that Trump is going to lose. They might be concerned about Hillary for different reasons but not about ordering a war crime.

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear from a sane poster. I was just listening to a doctor on Lawrence O'Donnell talking about how Trump and about 30% of Americans like to bully and demonize people. So true.

I am frankly aghast at the people who want our military to carpet bomb civilians. Americans used to know such tactics are the thing of dictators and tyrants. What have we become when a big chunk of our people are no longer concerned with maintaining our nation's moral superiority?

Actually carp bombings saved a shitload of lives.
The problem with the left is they don't seem to recognize evil anymore. Best way to stop evil from killing you is with the biggest fucking bomb in your arsenal, and don't skimp because if they find out you don't want to kick they're ass they'll be murdering you in your homes.

Carpet bombing civilians became an atrocity the very minute guided munitions became commonplace.

I guess you don't understand the purpose of carpet bombing.

The number one purpose of it was to break the enemy's shit without costing a million dollars a pop.

 

[occupied]

I am sure the senior commanders who are actually concerned about issuing illegal orders are relieved that Trump is going to lose. They might be concerned about Hillary for different reasons but not about ordering a war crime.

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear from a sane poster. I was just listening to a doctor on Lawrence O'Donnell talking about how Trump and about 30% of Americans like to bully and demonize people. So true.

I am frankly aghast at the people who want our military to carpet bomb civilians. Americans used to know such tactics are the thing of dictators and tyrants. What have we become when a big chunk of our people are no longer concerned with maintaining our nation's moral superiority?

Actually carp bombings saved a shitload of lives.
The problem with the left is they don't seem to recognize evil anymore. Best way to stop evil from killing you is with the biggest fucking bomb in your arsenal, and don't skimp because if they find out you don't want to kick they're ass they'll be murdering you in your homes.

Carpet bombing civilians became an atrocity the very minute guided munitions became commonplace.

I guess you don't understand the purpose of carpet bombing.

The number one purpose of it was to break the enemy's shit without costing a million dollars a pop.

The last time we used carpet bombing was Vietnam, tell the class how effective it was. We dropped more dumb bombs over Laos and Cambodia than we dropped in the entire European theater of WWII and still had to leave.

 

[mudwhistle]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

You DO realize that F-16's would be useless for close in air support required over there, right? They aren't equipped with weapons that can be fired within 100 ft of friendly troops.

Shoot.................Not even an A-10 would have been able to do the job due to the proximity of the combatants to the friendlies.

The only thing that would have worked would have been a rescue mission with helos and a rescue team. Only trouble is, we didn't have any assets that would have been able to get there in time.

Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime.

Spectre is pretty cool. AC-130 with 105 howitzers, 40mm cannons, mini-guns a blazing.
Spent all night listening to that barking above me a couple of times. I hear B52s are more impressive. That's what ended Desert Storm practically without a shot being fired.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

You DO realize that F-16's would be useless for close in air support required over there, right? They aren't equipped with weapons that can be fired within 100 ft of friendly troops.

Shoot.................Not even an A-10 would have been able to do the job due to the proximity of the combatants to the friendlies.

The only thing that would have worked would have been a rescue mission with helos and a rescue team. Only trouble is, we didn't have any assets that would have been able to get there in time.

Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime.

Spectre is pretty cool. AC-130 with 105 howitzers, 40mm cannons, mini-guns a blazing.
Spent all night listening to that barking above me a couple of times. I hear B52s are more impressive. That's what ended Desert Storm practically without a shot being fired.

I was responding to the poster that said when Benghazi happened, if Trump had been in office, he would have scrambled F-16's to rescue the ambassador.

Only trouble is, there are no weapons that the F-16 can carry that can be fired within 100 yards of a friendly. And, MAYBE a Spooky (AC-130) could have done something to help out, but question is, how many of them were within range that could have arrived on scene to help out before the ambassador was killed?

And exactly what do you think that a B52 could have done to help out the situation in Benghazi, and again...........how many were within range that could have shown up in time to help?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I am sure the senior commanders who are actually concerned about issuing illegal orders are relieved that Trump is going to lose. They might be concerned about Hillary for different reasons but not about ordering a war crime.

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear from a sane poster. I was just listening to a doctor on Lawrence O'Donnell talking about how Trump and about 30% of Americans like to bully and demonize people. So true.

I am frankly aghast at the people who want our military to carpet bomb civilians. Americans used to know such tactics are the thing of dictators and tyrants. What have we become when a big chunk of our people are no longer concerned with maintaining our nation's moral superiority?

Actually carp bombings saved a shitload of lives.
The problem with the left is they don't seem to recognize evil anymore. Best way to stop evil from killing you is with the biggest fucking bomb in your arsenal, and don't skimp because if they find out you don't want to kick they're ass they'll be murdering you in your homes.

Carpet bombing civilians became an atrocity the very minute guided munitions became commonplace.

I guess you don't understand the purpose of carpet bombing.

The number one purpose of it was to break the enemy's shit without costing a million dollars a pop.

And one of the reasons that it was outlawed by the Geneva Conventions is that not only will it kill the bad guys and break their stuff, but it will also kill a lot of innocent civilians and break their stuff as well.

I guess you're the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to burn down the house just to kill one mouse.

 

[Lakhota]

I like what the following Huffington Post poster said about the OP:

Thomas Peters ·
I suspect that most illegal orders that could be effectively challenged and disobeyed are not of the strategic variety, but the tactical. Torture and murder are not strategies, they are tactics, but they are also criminal acts.

And, I would point out that, as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, that makes those Conventions as much a part of US Law as any federal statute, for civilians as well as the military. Article VI of our Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

In that light, it would be an impeachable offense for any President, or high-ranking civilian or military person, to order any violation of US Law, or international treaty, and the duty of any subordinate to refuse to carry out such an order.

America elects Servants, not Rulers. The Rule of Law is SUPREME.

Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

I'm sure some of the transgender officers Obama promoted are nervous.

------------------------------------ i hope that the TRUMP can purge some , hopefully ALL of the unAmerican diversity that has been inserted into American military and Government ranks .

Our military men and women are not emotionless killbots or worthless cannon fodder. Commanders who treat them that way do not deserve command, this is not just my opinion, it is the very basis of an all volunteer force.

--------------------------------------- and thats one of the reasons why a volunteer military is a poor choice for a USA military Occupied .

Explain? The draft just about tore our nation apart because too many poor people were sent and the rich kids got deferments while wasting their lives and limbs in a stupid war no one really wanted. You want to go back to how it was in light of how badly it flew in the face of this being a free country?

I agree. Vietnam and the movie Platoon made that crystal clear.

Platoon and Vietnam have about as much in common as Hillary Klinton and Donald Trump

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The military loves HIllary........

 

[Lakhota]

------------------------------------ i hope that the TRUMP can purge some , hopefully ALL of the unAmerican diversity that has been inserted into American military and Government ranks .

Our military men and women are not emotionless killbots or worthless cannon fodder. Commanders who treat them that way do not deserve command, this is not just my opinion, it is the very basis of an all volunteer force.

--------------------------------------- and thats one of the reasons why a volunteer military is a poor choice for a USA military Occupied .

Explain? The draft just about tore our nation apart because too many poor people were sent and the rich kids got deferments while wasting their lives and limbs in a stupid war no one really wanted. You want to go back to how it was in light of how badly it flew in the face of this being a free country?

I agree. Vietnam and the movie Platoon made that crystal clear.

Platoon and Vietnam have about as much in common as Hillary Klinton and Donald Trump

Were you in Nam?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Our military men and women are not emotionless killbots or worthless cannon fodder. Commanders who treat them that way do not deserve command, this is not just my opinion, it is the very basis of an all volunteer force.

--------------------------------------- and thats one of the reasons why a volunteer military is a poor choice for a USA military Occupied .

Explain? The draft just about tore our nation apart because too many poor people were sent and the rich kids got deferments while wasting their lives and limbs in a stupid war no one really wanted. You want to go back to how it was in light of how badly it flew in the face of this being a free country?

I agree. Vietnam and the movie Platoon made that crystal clear.

Platoon and Vietnam have about as much in common as Hillary Klinton and Donald Trump

Were you in Nam?

Delivered ordinance to Guam that was dropped on the North.

 

[jasonnfree]

If they'll obey Obama, they'll obey anybody.

But they will probably be encouraged that what President Trump tells them to do, will follow the Constitution, and will benefit Americans first.

My guess is that most of the military guys would favor Trump over the beast.

If they'll obey Obama, they'll obey anybody.

But they will probably be encouraged that what President Trump tells them to do, will follow the Constitution, and will benefit Americans first.

The clintons', and obama's incompetence and disrespect for the military is legend, but they haven't rebelled. Trump will probably be a welcome change.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

You DO realize that F-16's would be useless for close in air support required over there, right? They aren't equipped with weapons that can be fired within 100 ft of friendly troops.

Shoot.................Not even an A-10 would have been able to do the job due to the proximity of the combatants to the friendlies.

The only thing that would have worked would have been a rescue mission with helos and a rescue team. Only trouble is, we didn't have any assets that would have been able to get there in time.

Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime.

And who at the WH was even monitoring the situation???
Oh that's right they all took off in jets didn't they.

 

[oreo]

Even if some officers thought his orders were illegal or unethical.

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

He has suggested carpet-bombing Syrian cities, assassinating the families of Islamic State fighters and torturing detainees, all illegal under international or U.S. law. He has proposed withdrawing troops from South Korea (a similar troop withdrawal helped ignite the 1950 Korean War), advocated disengaging from NATO, and declared that Japan would be “better off” with its own nuclear weapons. And he has famously bragged, “I know more about ISIS than the generals!”

The U.S. military prides itself on scrupulous adherence to strict moral and ethical values. While some in the ranks may be passionate Trump supporters, for others, the idea of actually carrying out his more bizarre ideas is unthinkable.

“I cannot imagine active-duty troops doing what Trump is stating,” said Paul Eaton, an Army two-star general who resigned in 2006 in protest against Bush administration military policies. “I believe we would have outright defiance,” Eaton told The Huffington Post. Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force four-star general and former director of the National Security Agency, is even more blunt. Given an order to kill families of suspected terrorists, “the American armed forces would refuse to act,” he said.

Trump has fired back. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he boasted at a March 3 GOP presidential debate. “Believe me ― If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.”

Trump may be right. Despite its occasional disagreements with presidents and civilian officials, the military doesn’t have an especially proud record of refusing orders. Military officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the commander in chief. Nevertheless, the top brass, despite deep misgivings about the conduct of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, quietly went along with what the White House wanted. In 11 years of war in Vietnam, 58,220 Americans were killed; 4,520 Americans have died in the still-raging Iraq War so far.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers.
--U.S. Army Doctrine, Army Values​

The record suggests that the United States military, which takes pride in its strong professional ethics, nevertheless is no bulwark against military fiascos.

“It’s hard for military officers to disobey orders,” said Peter Mansoor, a historian and retired Army colonel who was the top aide to Gen. David Petraeus during the Iraq War troop surge in 2007-2008. “It’s a career-ending move that likely will get you court-martialed. One has to be willing to put one’s future on the line.”

The legal lines are clear. Waterboarding, used on detainees during the Bush administration as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or torture, is illegal under international and now U.S. law. The deliberate targeting of war-zone civilians, whether or not they are related to ISIS fighters or other terrorists, is a war crime under international law.

Nevertheless, Trump has asserted that both are necessary and, if he’s president, would be part of his war on ISIS.

“You have to take out their families,” Trump said three times during a phone interviewwith Fox News last December, brushing aside the issue of civilian casualties as “political correctness.”

These and other Trump pronouncements may be impulsive bluster, but they clash hard against the military’s values of personal courage, honor, integrity and loyalty, among others. At its core, the military’s value system is its commitment to use lethal violence only when legally and morally justified.

“Do what’s right, legally and morally,” the Army instructs its soldiers. “Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

More: Would The Military Obey Commander In Chief Trump? Probably.

This is yet another reason why I find the thought of a President Trump very dangerous and repugnant - because I agree with the OP that most soldiers would likely obey illegal, immoral and/or unethical orders from the president.

Not after what this one 4 star General said. Funny but after the DNC convention this was the only guy that Trump didn't say he was going to knock his head off--LOL All of a sudden John Wayne Trump turned into Pee Wee Herman.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

You DO realize that F-16's would be useless for close in air support required over there, right? They aren't equipped with weapons that can be fired within 100 ft of friendly troops.

Shoot.................Not even an A-10 would have been able to do the job due to the proximity of the combatants to the friendlies.

The only thing that would have worked would have been a rescue mission with helos and a rescue team. Only trouble is, we didn't have any assets that would have been able to get there in time.

Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime.

And who at the WH was even monitoring the situation???
Oh that's right they all took off in jets didn't they.

There were plenty of people monitoring the situation. Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime. Originally, they wanted to mount a rescue operation from Sigonella Sicily, but they didn't have the resources available, so they tried to mount another one from farther away (Aviano Italy), but still didn't have enough resources to mount a rescue operation.

The only ones that could have shown up in time were the security detail at the CIA station, but the trouble is, the CIA station chief wouldn't let them go until around 2 and a half hours after the attack began, and by then, it was too late.

If he would have let them go when the attack started, maybe it would have been a much different story and the ambassador would have lived.

Bottom line is, we had no assets close enough to mount a rescue attempt.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

You DO realize that F-16's would be useless for close in air support required over there, right? They aren't equipped with weapons that can be fired within 100 ft of friendly troops.

Shoot.................Not even an A-10 would have been able to do the job due to the proximity of the combatants to the friendlies.

The only thing that would have worked would have been a rescue mission with helos and a rescue team. Only trouble is, we didn't have any assets that would have been able to get there in time.

Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime.

And who at the WH was even monitoring the situation???
Oh that's right they all took off in jets didn't they.

There were plenty of people monitoring the situation. Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime. Originally, they wanted to mount a rescue operation from Sigonella Sicily, but they didn't have the resources available, so they tried to mount another one from farther away (Aviano Italy), but still didn't have enough resources to mount a rescue operation.

The only ones that could have shown up in time were the security detail at the CIA station, but the trouble is, the CIA station chief wouldn't let them go until around 2 and a half hours after the attack began, and by then, it was too late.

If he would have let them go when the attack started, maybe it would have been a much different story and the ambassador would have lived.

Bottom line is, we had no assets close enough to mount a rescue attempt.

Give me a name in the WH that was monitoring the situation, Hillary? Obama?
Someone that had optics?
I've seen 13 hours

 

[washamericom]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

More than likely, trump's response to Benghazi would have been to nuke Europe.

"What do you mean Syria isn't in Europe? Well fuck it. Nuke Europe anyway. We made these nukes to use them, right?"

the nuke codes shouldn't be on a "private" server though.

 

[washamericom]

Trump would have scrambled F16's to benghazi. they would have gone.
as America, we would at least have tried. there would be no cover up in the aftermath.

You DO realize that F-16's would be useless for close in air support required over there, right? They aren't equipped with weapons that can be fired within 100 ft of friendly troops.

Shoot.................Not even an A-10 would have been able to do the job due to the proximity of the combatants to the friendlies.

The only thing that would have worked would have been a rescue mission with helos and a rescue team. Only trouble is, we didn't have any assets that would have been able to get there in time.

Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime.

And who at the WH was even monitoring the situation???
Oh that's right they all took off in jets didn't they.

There were plenty of people monitoring the situation. Watch the movie 13 Hours sometime. Originally, they wanted to mount a rescue operation from Sigonella Sicily, but they didn't have the resources available, so they tried to mount another one from farther away (Aviano Italy), but still didn't have enough resources to mount a rescue operation.

The only ones that could have shown up in time were the security detail at the CIA station, but the trouble is, the CIA station chief wouldn't let them go until around 2 and a half hours after the attack began, and by then, it was too late.

If he would have let them go when the attack started, maybe it would have been a much different story and the ambassador would have lived.

Bottom line is, we had no assets close enough to mount a rescue attempt.

we had F16's, and we didn't try, and they lied about benghazi to win reelection. that's where i'm at right now.
i've seen 13 hours, it's pretty hollywood.

 

[washamericom]

Donald J. Trump is causing some high anxiety inside the military.

I'm sure some of the transgender officers Obama promoted are nervous.

Is that really all you gleaned from the OP?

We also gleaned that you're a bleeding heart retard who has as much sympathy for brutal murderers as for people who volunteer for the Salvation Army.

Trump is talking the indiscriminate killing of civilians, a war crime. It's not a matter of sympathy so much as our president forcing our young men and women to do illegal things that would destroy our standing in the world.

obama's orders have killed a lot of innocent civilians, it's part of his job. with impunity, without due process.

 

[washamericom]

I just glanced through your first opening post . Its too long and the thing that i saw that made me stop reading is your reference to 'international law' . Feck 'international law' as the USA is a SOVEREIGN Nation and lets hope that the Trump return to the principles of American Sovereignty and everything that the words American Sovereignty means Lakhota .

"International law" helps to protect all civilized sovereign nations. All for one and one for all. Putin hates international law and NATO.

Putin hates international law and NATO.

Then why was Hillary sending him a reset button and why was Obama eager to be more flexible after 2012?
Were they wrong or just stupid?

both.