I think that's EXACTLY what they were getting at. As always, YMMV.Quote:
But no, I don't think that's what they were getting at, not at all.
Printable View
I think that's EXACTLY what they were getting at. As always, YMMV.Quote:
But no, I don't think that's what they were getting at, not at all.
There is also the question legality of destroying supposed drug boats. Appearances are an Admiral retired rather than follow orders. Is it OK or legal for the military to execute potentially innocent people because the soldiers are following orders.
While it's not illegal in itself, Trump appears to be using the military to advance his ego fueled political agendas or just out of ignorance, which is intrinsically wrong.
The NYT had an interesting analysis of this situation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/23/o...legal-war.html
I think the point is to infect the Democratic base with the idea that illegal orders are being given to the military. I think that's why not a single participant in the video can or will reference a single illegal order given when they are asked about it since if or when anything specific is proven false the whole effort is wasted. I've watched interviews with several of the participants on CNN, MSNOW (MSNBC) and CNBC where they are asked to provide specific details to justify their alleged fears and they can't or won't do so. I think that's because undefined fears have a greater overall effect on people than defined fears that are proven false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Plus, it ties into the whole fascist, dictator narrative the base finds such joy in espousing.
I can respect your unquestioning trust in the correctness of all military orders, since, a you say, it appears none have ever been given illegally.
You're misrepresenting me. I mentioned several posts back that I'm sure there have been illegal or improper military orders given within a defined chain of command but am unaware of any military orders issued by the CIC or SecDef that turned out to be illegal. Perhaps you are more aware than I? Can you share?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
No person finds joy of even entertaining such thoughts. But when the indications and actions dictate, it is wise to espouse the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Since I don't know what CIC or SecDef is, I have to take your word. My Lai comes to my mind. I fully suspect there have been other attempted or successful cover ups we common folk don't know about. I thought the NYT article did better than me for representing both sides of the issue without falling into your category of name calling. I trust some of you opinions as much as Jason and his other 5 who have extensive training and experience, but I don't think either is totally right or wrong. And I favor one over the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Commander In Chief and Secretary of Defense, the two top slots in the military chain of command. At least one of the 6 Democrats, Mark Kelly, has admitted in interviews that their concerns are based upon orders issued by those two positions, although no one can commit to a predicate that fuels their concern. In my mind that makes it political.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I think we've successfully beat the dead horse. I believe several in congress have questioned the destruction of the supposed drug boats without presenting any evidence of their occupants guilt or a danger to our country. Maybe even a Republican or two. If I were operating the craft involved in their destruction under orders from Hesgeth, the TGV personality, I'd be asking questions. Any more a sneeze can be considered political, depending on. who is interpreting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
:+1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar