Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 9:05:26 GMT -5
Another, current comparison:
Come on. COME ON. This train has gone off the rails and crashed into crazytown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 8:00:08 GMT -5
The first three sentences of Trump's tweet are complete lies. Dangerous, irresponsible lies of the kind stirring up alt-right White Supremacist loons to gun down synagogues.
More people will die. But hey, midterms, MAGA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 15:15:51 GMT -5
So now the number of troops could be three times the size of the caravan, even if it doesn't shrink (which it will).
Ya gotta have three armed National Guards to handle every toddler, dontcha know!
Beutler's comment on Puerto Rico is perfectly fair, I think. We have the money and manpower, apparently, to send this ridiculous number of troops to the border to deal with a non-threat that is weeks away, and yet thousands died in Puerto Rico because Trump did little beyond toss a few paper towels at them. So much winning!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 20:24:19 GMT -5
The GOP, party of fiscal prudence.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 2, 2018 1:41:15 GMT -5
Let's inject a little reality into this outrage about the troops going to the border. First of all, General Mattis: thehill.com/policy/defense/414123-mattis-on-border-troops-we-dont-do-stuntsHere's a perspective that makes more sense Click on the Tweet and you will see a few more with an explanation of what the troops will be doing. Again, Trump is all bluster. I wish he'd shut up.
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Nov 2, 2018 2:56:54 GMT -5
Ya gotta have three armed National Guards to handle every toddler, dontcha know! As the mother of three (3!) once-were-toddlers I can attest to the absolute veracity of this statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 3:59:20 GMT -5
Let's inject a little reality into this outrage about the troops going to the border.
You know what, ce? The person cheering on the unhinged lunatic in the White House who on a daily basis is talking about sending between 5000 to 15000 troops to the border to deal with a caravan of unarmed poor people a several weeks walk away -- a caravan that is smaller than the number of troops being sent -- a caravan that likely will be much much much smaller by the time it gets here, based on past experience -- does not really get to preen herself on being the calm voice of reason who is "injecting a little reality" into the discussion. Have you ever taken me up on my challenge to follow what Trump actually SAYS as opposed to the strained, pureed, purified version you seem to follow or what his handlers scrambling behind him with the pooper scoopers say to cover up for him? No? Then allow me to update you. That's the kind of thing your president is saying. Scroll upward in the thread for more of it. I'm thinking maybe you should listen to the guy you voted for instead of the general he may fire at any minute, who is simply trying his damndest to scramble to deal with the guy you voted for so he doesn't actually detonate the country. You really think we need a larger force of troops to contend with this caravan than we have deployed in Iraq? ( Or, hey, 160 other countries)? I am pretty sure General Mattis doesn't actually think we need those troops there either. But as long as he's in that job, he doesn't have a lot of fucking choice here except to cover the situation as best he can. He's not gonna say "President Trump is a goddamn lunatic and we don't need 5000 to 15000 troops at the border" -- not when President Trump is ranting every single day that he's sending those troops. He's gonna cover Trump's ass. Especially just before the midterms. By the way, do you know why Mattis used the word "stunt"? It's because a pile of veterans and former Republican and Democratic officials are using that word and others like it to describe the situation.Mattis is doing his best to cover Trump's ass and clean up after his batshit pronouncements. That's what's happening. It's. Fucking. Ridiculous. And hey, while you're here, celawson, feel free to comment on Trump's continuing to double down on his demonization of the caravan as being full of dangerous criminals and "unknown middle-easterners", when it's pretty clear, in light of last week's events, that this fear-mongering is stirring up crazies with guns and creating an actual danger. I challenge you again -- read your president's twitter feed every day. Watch his rally coverage, or at least read the transcripts. Follow what the guy you support is actually saying every day. I'm doing it. And I think you have a responsibility to do it, if you're going to be his valiant defender. Defend the reality.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Nov 2, 2018 5:31:53 GMT -5
Former Army infantry or not, this person is full of shit regarding rules of engagement. Regardless, Trump is full of shit with all his bluster. Really, most of twitter is full of shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 5:42:03 GMT -5
In which sense? That it's wrong to shoot the people if they throw a rock, or that an 18-year-old private might take the president at his word and do it?
If the former, a lot of military people, including generals, are saying the contrary. I'm not military, so I confess I'm not as up on military engagement rules.
If the latter -- well, I respect and value our troops. That said, they're human beings. Some of them are very young human beings. I'm not so sure it's not correct that some would go ahead and shoot when the Commander in Chief said to shoot. And then, while I'm confident most are upstanding people, some are not going to be, because human. The young soldiers at Gitmo engaged in some pretty grotesque behavior, and I'm betting that they got the idea that was okay based on what higher ups were sanctioning. (If waterboarding, why not naked human pileups?) If a few had a hard-on about migrants, and the President said "shoot"...
I do agree with Michael Hayden here:
I'm pretty confident commanding officers would ignore Trump's directive. But a fresh young recruit who loses his head, or perhaps a bad seed looking for an excuse...I dunno. I'm less confident.
In any case, I think this is a good point:
I don't think it's a great thing that officers are going to be forced to tell recruits "ignore the Commander in Chief."
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Nov 2, 2018 6:05:29 GMT -5
This first part.
Shooting people for throwing rocks is NOT prohibited under either general rules of engagement or even the more restrictive standing rules for the use of force the military is subject to while operating on US soil.
Firing weapons wouldn't and shouldn't be the first reaction, but to claim it is flat out prohibited is wrong.
That said, most of the troops deployed, just by looking at their specialties, aren't going to be armed.
Torture at both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo wasn't the idea of young soldiers. Both instances were sanctioned and encouraged by higher ups and most likely CIA directives. Though of course no one of any consequential rank has or will be charged with a crime.
I have serious doubts a random tweet or comment from Trump is going to influence troops behavior much.
And the average grunt couldn't give a shit about what the commander in chief...any commander in chief...has to say. Their world consists entirely of their NCOs and direct chain of command officers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 6:24:47 GMT -5
Well, a four star general (among others) says firmly it IS against the rules of engagement. Just saying. Gen. Hayden was not the only one. I don't know personally, but when a four star general says it, I don't think it's gullible for me to believe it. I know the torture at Gitmo wasn't the idea of young soldiers. But what WAS the idea of young soldier was some abuse that went beyond that torture -- those horrible photos where they made the detainees do humiliating things to mock them, and the disrespectful and inappropriate treatment on their bodies, etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuseAnd I can't help but feel that the fact that torture was permitted by higher ups gave some of the lower downs some notion that the Geneva convention, etc. were inapplicable and the detainees were fair game for whatever. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's a theory. In any case, it's clear that some young soldiers behaved very badly. To be clear: I have a pretty deep veneration for our military, which comes from nearly marrying a Marine Corp major. You may have noticed how I fangirl over military bravery. I firmly believe the overwhelming majority of our troops are excellent people doing an incredible job for their country, at great cost to themselves, and that we all owe them a major debt of gratitude and respect. But. All groups of humans will have some who fall short, because human. And if you have a commander in chief encouraging it...well, I think that's bad.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 2, 2018 6:40:22 GMT -5
Let's inject a little reality into this outrage about the troops going to the border. Click on the Tweet and you will see a few more with an explanation of what the troops will be doing. Again, Trump is all bluster. I wish he'd shut up.
Because a Tweet is a fine way to explain military policy. General Mattis can say what he wants, but if you actually believe this
You wish he'd shut up, but you'll still vote for him. You wish he'd shut up, but everything he does is fine.
The idea that you're gonna educate us about reality is laughable. At this point, I believe that you - yes, you, c.e. lawson - would literally vote for Trump even if he put on a literal Swastika and started literally calling for Jews to be killed. Because that would still be better than voting for a Democrat. After all, he's just blustering, and checks and balances will keep him from actually killing any Jews.
Now run off and do whatever you'll tell us you're very busy doing which is why you can't ever answer any direct questions or address the mountain of evidence Cass assembled to point out that deploying 5200 troops to the border is an unnecessary stunt, however General Mattis is forced to spin the orders he got from his CiC.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Nov 2, 2018 6:40:23 GMT -5
Think of it this way Cass...why do police get away with shooting people so often? The "I feared for my life or the safety of others" defense.
Every single set of ROE has that exact same caveat in it. Look up some images of ROE cards. They will all have two things at the top:
1. The issuer and mission the ROE card relates to. 2. A statement to the effect of "nothing contained here subverts your inherent right to defend yourself, your unit, or the mission by any means deemed necessary".
Will a soldier go to court martial for shooting a single person who throws a single rock? Damn straight and they damn well should.
Are service members prohibited from firing on a group of 20 stoning their squad of five to death? Nope.
Again, my point was simple....to state ROE prohibits the use of force, even deadly force, is incorrect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 6:43:16 GMT -5
Taking that aside, why the fuck is Trump even bringing up the migrants throwing rocks?
From what I have read, when the last "caravan" came up, by the time it got here, it was a small group of people who presented themselves at a port of entry. (Which, by the way, is legal.) A grand total of fourteen people were arrested, according to, among others, Shep Smith of Fox news (I posted the link somewhere). I don't recall reading about hordes of rock-throwing mobs attacking border guards. I stand ready to be corrected.
But Trump being Trump, and it being a few days before midterms, doesn't think a ragtag bunch of poor desperate families walking north and weeks away, gradually diminishing in size as it comes closer, is sufficiently scary, so he has to paint a picture of a huge rock-throwing dangerous mob full of murderous criminals and unknown Middle Easterners. For which of course, he must deploy more troops than we have in Iraq, with orders to shoot.
Sorry. It's just fucked up. There's nothing rational about this.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 2, 2018 6:46:43 GMT -5
Well, a four star general (among others) says firmly it IS against the rules of engagement. Just saying. Gen. Hayden was not the only one. I don't know personally, but when a four star general says it, I don't think it's gullible for me to believe it.
Note that "Rules of engagement" isn't a legal term - he's not talking about the Geneva Convention or anything like that. The ROE are whatever policy the military sets for a given operation. In one operation, the Rules of Engagement might say don't shoot unless fired upon. In another, they might say shoot at any vehicle that crosses a certain border.
Generally, the ROE will include things like trying to deescalate and not immediately shooting at civilians if you can retreat instead, but if their lives are in danger (and being pelted with rocks is certainly life-threatening), there isn't some across-the-board rule, let alone law, saying US troops are never allowed to return fire.
|
|