Yer wrong, the soldiers do what their OFFICERS say, not what the president says. and the officers will not blindly follow the president against the constitution, or the people.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm well aware of the oathkeepers. I'm also well aware that they are a part of a fraction of the military that actually thinks. The rest? Thinking about anything other than getting laid or shooting people is hard. If the President declared martial law and told the military to become the new police force maybe 10% would have the balls to defy the order.lowing wrote:
It is financed by the people. It works for the people. As DID the congress and president. The military still does.JohnG@lt wrote:
Military is not govt? Who is the Commander in Chief? Who controls the purse strings of the military? Who sets the budget for military research? Who makes purchases of new equipment? Who selects the JCOS? Who tells it where to go and what to do?
Lol at the military being outside of the government. They're as far outside of the government as the EPA, IRS and SEC.
As you can tell per this.
It has started already http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
The President cannot choose to be the leader of the nation and the leader of the armed forces for any longer than he is allowed to be POTUS....so he is supposed to be beholden to the people. Military officers are career, so they're role does not expire at the end of an election term. The main idea to remember here is that the military is not a political faction vying for control of the nation. It is a tool to be used by the administration, nothing more, nothing less.Morpheus wrote:
...OK, but can you answer my question?
I did, he is a figure head, if he went against the people the military will not follow.Morpheus wrote:
...OK, but can you answer my question?lowing wrote:
HE is the C in C yet has never held a real job, for any lengh of real time. He is a symbol of the people, how appropriate he is liberal.Morpheus wrote:
Really? All the top generals retire when the administration changes? Why is the president (the symbol of administration) refered to as the Commander in Chief? Did the military go into iraqistan because the PEOPLE wanted to, or because the ADMINISTRATION wanted to?
lawl, ok bud.lowing wrote:
Yer wrong, the soldiers do what their OFFICERS say, not what the president says. and the officers will not blindly follow the president against the constitution, or the people.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm well aware of the oathkeepers. I'm also well aware that they are a part of a fraction of the military that actually thinks. The rest? Thinking about anything other than getting laid or shooting people is hard. If the President declared martial law and told the military to become the new police force maybe 10% would have the balls to defy the order.lowing wrote:
It is financed by the people. It works for the people. As DID the congress and president. The military still does.
As you can tell per this.
It has started already http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
ya don't think?JohnG@lt wrote:
lawl, ok bud.lowing wrote:
Yer wrong, the soldiers do what their OFFICERS say, not what the president says. and the officers will not blindly follow the president against the constitution, or the people.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm well aware of the oathkeepers. I'm also well aware that they are a part of a fraction of the military that actually thinks. The rest? Thinking about anything other than getting laid or shooting people is hard. If the President declared martial law and told the military to become the new police force maybe 10% would have the balls to defy the order.
who would really listen to directly, Obama ordering an illegal action, or your commander ordering you to disobey it?
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-11 11:46:51)
Right, but unfortunately, sometimes it seems that idea has become corrupt...SenorToenails wrote:
The President cannot choose to be the leader of the nation and the leader of the armed forces for any longer than he is allowed to be POTUS....so he is supposed to be beholden to the people. Military officers are career, so they're role does not expire at the end of an election term. The main idea to remember here is that the military is not a political faction vying for control of the nation. It is a tool to be used by the administration, nothing more, nothing less.Morpheus wrote:
...OK, but can you answer my question?
I ask again, if the Military is supposed to represent the PEOPLE, who chose to go to Iraqistan?
EE (hats
THe people represented by the president. Now, do you think the people are really going to stand for action taken against themselves? Do you really think our military is going to blindly follow action taken against the constitution and the citizens?Morpheus wrote:
Right, but unfortunately, sometimes it seems that idea has become corrupt...SenorToenails wrote:
The President cannot choose to be the leader of the nation and the leader of the armed forces for any longer than he is allowed to be POTUS....so he is supposed to be beholden to the people. Military officers are career, so they're role does not expire at the end of an election term. The main idea to remember here is that the military is not a political faction vying for control of the nation. It is a tool to be used by the administration, nothing more, nothing less.Morpheus wrote:
...OK, but can you answer my question?
I ask again, if the Military is supposed to represent the PEOPLE, who chose to go to Iraqistan?
That commander has a commander of his own and if you don't think he will sack him for mutiny you're kidding yourselflowing wrote:
ya don't think?JohnG@lt wrote:
lawl, ok bud.lowing wrote:
Yer wrong, the soldiers do what their OFFICERS say, not what the president says. and the officers will not blindly follow the president against the constitution, or the people.
who would really listen to directly, Obama ordering an illegal action, or your commander ordering you to disobey it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
ok, so the PRESIDENT chose to go... wether or not he represent sthe people, he still makes the call.lowing wrote:
THe people represented by the president. Now, do you think the people are really going to stand for action taken against themselves? Do you really think our military is going to blindly follow action taken against the constitution and the citizens?Morpheus wrote:
Right, but unfortunately, sometimes it seems that idea has become corrupt...SenorToenails wrote:
The President cannot choose to be the leader of the nation and the leader of the armed forces for any longer than he is allowed to be POTUS....so he is supposed to be beholden to the people. Military officers are career, so they're role does not expire at the end of an election term. The main idea to remember here is that the military is not a political faction vying for control of the nation. It is a tool to be used by the administration, nothing more, nothing less.
I ask again, if the Military is supposed to represent the PEOPLE, who chose to go to Iraqistan?
As for the others, i think if the people are told it's good for them, they'l probably do it, and the military would totally allow it if they were the ones doing it... it's so easy now thanks to the patriot act... "She's a witchterrorist!""Burn her!"
EE (hats
He will try, who is going to actually do it? Himself?JohnG@lt wrote:
That commander has a commander of his own and if you don't think he will sack him for mutiny you're kidding yourselflowing wrote:
ya don't think?JohnG@lt wrote:
lawl, ok bud.
who would really listen to directly, Obama ordering an illegal action, or your commander ordering you to disobey it?
The generals will not follow the president into illegal action against the constitution or the people of the US. At worst there will be a rip between "loyalists", and "traitors", within the ranks, you can decide who will be labled which
Morpheus wrote:
Right, but unfortunately, sometimes it seems that idea has become corrupt...
I ask again, if the Military is supposed to represent the PEOPLE, who chose to go to Iraqistan?
Source.When the invasion began in October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans and about 65% of Britons backed military action in Afghanistan.
Source.By February 2003, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Hussein from power.
Apparently, the people did.
I guess you are forgetting the members of the military would be taking action against their own families and friends, home towns, etc......ain't gunna happen.Morpheus wrote:
ok, so the PRESIDENT chose to go... wether or not he represent sthe people, he still makes the call.lowing wrote:
THe people represented by the president. Now, do you think the people are really going to stand for action taken against themselves? Do you really think our military is going to blindly follow action taken against the constitution and the citizens?Morpheus wrote:
Right, but unfortunately, sometimes it seems that idea has become corrupt...
I ask again, if the Military is supposed to represent the PEOPLE, who chose to go to Iraqistan?
As for the others, i think if the people are told it's good for them, they'l probably do it, and the military would totally allow it if they were the ones doing it... it's so easy now thanks to the patriot act... "She's a witchterrorist!""Burn her!"
was gunna dig that up, but didn't feel like searching for it.SenorToenails wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
Right, but unfortunately, sometimes it seems that idea has become corrupt...
I ask again, if the Military is supposed to represent the PEOPLE, who chose to go to Iraqistan?Source.When the invasion began in October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans and about 65% of Britons backed military action in Afghanistan.Source.By February 2003, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Hussein from power.
Apparently, the people did.
Jesus H. Tapdancin' Christ it would be nice if people would actually READ the fucking PATRIOT Act before they spout off about it...and the other US Code that it doesn't rescind (that means that is still in effect, btw).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
To backtrack a little...
You don't rely on nukes as your entire military. Nobody buys into nuclear threats unless a nation's survival is threatened. "Get out of the Falkland Islands, or we will start World War III" isn't a very credible threat.
Since WWII, the US military has become much more than a territorial defense force. You would have to reconstruct foreign policy almost from scratch if you want to dramatically reduce the US military's size. (Unless you don't mind screwing over the military AND foreign policy)
I don't have much faith in the military refusing orders, unless they are BLATANTLY unconstitutional. I'm much more worried about a gradual destruction of civil rights than some "round up the minorities" type order. Make changes slow enough and small enough, and nobody will have the guts to rebel.
You don't rely on nukes as your entire military. Nobody buys into nuclear threats unless a nation's survival is threatened. "Get out of the Falkland Islands, or we will start World War III" isn't a very credible threat.
Since WWII, the US military has become much more than a territorial defense force. You would have to reconstruct foreign policy almost from scratch if you want to dramatically reduce the US military's size. (Unless you don't mind screwing over the military AND foreign policy)
I don't have much faith in the military refusing orders, unless they are BLATANTLY unconstitutional. I'm much more worried about a gradual destruction of civil rights than some "round up the minorities" type order. Make changes slow enough and small enough, and nobody will have the guts to rebel.
But as a purely defensive military, why do you need much more than nukes? As an example I don't see where the massive blue-water navy comes into a defensive military.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Day to day connectivity with their allies. Navies also help humanitarian shit too, just look at what Australia's navy does on a day to day basis.Spark wrote:
But as a purely defensive military, why do you need much more than nukes? As an example I don't see where the massive blue-water navy comes into a defensive military.
That's my point, you don't need 10-12 supercarriers for that.Cybargs wrote:
Day to day connectivity with their allies. Navies also help humanitarian shit too, just look at what Australia's navy does on a day to day basis.Spark wrote:
But as a purely defensive military, why do you need much more than nukes? As an example I don't see where the massive blue-water navy comes into a defensive military.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Correct, you'd have to try things like diplomacy, playing a positive role in the UN and so on.RAIMIUS wrote:
You would have to reconstruct foreign policy almost from scratch if you want to dramatically reduce the US military's size.
Fuck Israel
Its also a big fuck you to your allies enemies when you park one at their bay (Taiwan and Japan.)Spark wrote:
That's my point, you don't need 10-12 supercarriers for that.Cybargs wrote:
Day to day connectivity with their allies. Navies also help humanitarian shit too, just look at what Australia's navy does on a day to day basis.Spark wrote:
But as a purely defensive military, why do you need much more than nukes? As an example I don't see where the massive blue-water navy comes into a defensive military.
Carriers are very useful for humanitarian aid and quick response, Better money spent on a carrier than a B-2 tbh.
you mean like the 10 years of diplomacy we tried with Iraq to get them to comply?Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, you'd have to try things like diplomacy, playing a positive role in the UN and so on.RAIMIUS wrote:
You would have to reconstruct foreign policy almost from scratch if you want to dramatically reduce the US military's size.
Because unless they are threatening your nation's very existance, they won't buy the nuclear threat.Spark wrote:
But as a purely defensive military, why do you need much more than nukes? As an example I don't see where the massive blue-water navy comes into a defensive military.
The nuclear threat is an "if I'm going down, you're comming with me" deal. Unless the first part is there, the second part isn't credible.
They did comply, which was inconvenient for the US.lowing wrote:
you mean like the 10 years of diplomacy we tried with Iraq to get them to comply?Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, you'd have to try things like diplomacy, playing a positive role in the UN and so on.RAIMIUS wrote:
You would have to reconstruct foreign policy almost from scratch if you want to dramatically reduce the US military's size.
Fuck Israel
Sorry, history and the facts disagrees with youDilbert_X wrote:
They did comply, which was inconvenient for the US.lowing wrote:
you mean like the 10 years of diplomacy we tried with Iraq to get them to comply?Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, you'd have to try things like diplomacy, playing a positive role in the UN and so on.
Which is why we inconveniently spent billions of dollars to enforce a No-Fly zone and send in missiles and bombs when Saddam got really testy...sure./sarcasmDilbert_X wrote:
They did comply, which was inconvenient for the US.lowing wrote:
you mean like the 10 years of diplomacy we tried with Iraq to get them to comply?Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, you'd have to try things like diplomacy, playing a positive role in the UN and so on.