US military commander in Iraq and Syria rejects GOP pledges to 'carpet-bomb' Isis

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 01:18 PM)McC Wrote: That's a big problem because we're never gonna do either of those things.  Plus, it seems like it's gone too far for it to stop.  In the Jihadists' minds, only our elimination would end it.  Seems like they want all Christians off the face of the earth.  We are not the only country they attack.

They are not attacking any Christian nations.  The United States will not be their target until they settle the conflict within their own religion.

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 01:36 PM)McC Wrote: The problem with that is that our enemies choose to surround themselves with civilians.  And, last I checked, killing civilians is their basic MO.  I can't buy that we're the only bad guys here, like you apparently do.

No one here is saying that. What is being said is that they are bad guys, but they are not our bad guys to fight. This is a fight older than our country and out meddling in it is dragging us down.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 12:01 PM)McC Wrote: Nah, let's just ***** foot around with them for the next hundred years.  This generation's Viet Nam.

(01-30-2016, 05:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, we've moved on from Colonialism to Imperialism. 

(01-30-2016, 05:54 PM)McC Wrote: That's a damned lie.

So according to you the United States isn't involved in imperialism, but you apparently just endorsed criminal, indiscriminate carpet bombing in two different countries over the objections of a senior military commander in charge of the mission.  Call me crazy, but that kinda, sorta, maybe, possibly seems like imperialism just a whole lot.

"Nah, let's just ***** foot around with them . . ."  Who is us?  Are you talking about you and your couch?

(02-02-2016, 12:30 PM)McC Wrote: It's just a terrible situation.  If we're sending our sons and daughters over there to fight, 

(01-31-2016, 09:26 PM)McC Wrote: The American people are not imperialists.  The American people do not want want to send their sons and daughters to fight on foreign shores.  

Well, which is it young, feller?  We don't wan to send them?  If we send them?  News flash: they've already been sent.  Nonstop.  Since 2001.  Do you expect us to "just ***** foot around with them"?

Quote:there should at least be some prospect for ending the conflict.  But this is not a conflict that will end 

And there you go.  In back to back sentences no less.  Don't get involved without an end game, but there is no end game sooooo . . .

Quote:What happens if you just leave?

The same thing that has been going on in the same places since before Christ was born.

[Vlad]

(02-02-2016, 12:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right, because after we stopped bombing the North Vietnamese the communist came over here and took over.


The similarities between our screw up in Vietnam, and Iraq are scary.  Both military actions were justified by a lie ("Gulf of Tonkin", "Weapons of Mass destruction") and fueled by fear ("If we don't defeat them over there we will have to fight them here in America").

It is amazing that we never learned our lesson from Vietnam.  We did not kill them all, yet instead of it being the first stepping stone of world domination by communists we now have Viertnam as a favored trading partner of the United States.

 
Um no, the fear was that communism would take over countries in Southeast Asia by way of the domino effect...which never happened.

Communism in the US would occur from within, without anyone firing a shot as predicted by USSR Prez Nikita Khrushchev...slowly but surely. Progressively if you will.  

Carpet bombing and "nuke em" are kneejerk reactions mounting from frustration watching the atrocities of muslim savages every day, but neither will work. Putin has been bombing parts of Syria with little success, and warns of a long struggle.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/04/458503922/with-few-signs-of-progress-russias-putin-warns-of-long-fight-in-syria

The task of wiping out these sub humans is a greater feat than trying to stop the Vietnamese "spread" of communism.

The Vietnamese didn't go around wearing suicide vests blowing up innocent people, they didn't capture and behead people, didn't come to the US and engage in terrorists acts, fly airplanes into buildings, invade Europe and rape their women, or throw gays off rooftops.

Oh and Im aware of the horrendous treatment prisoners received at the hands of the North Vietnamese, but these were military combatants, so don't start another one of your inane comparisons...."the Vietnamese did bad stuff too".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 01:13 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: at which point the higher ups would have him arrested and replaced.  his moral conscience would be clean. but the end result would be the same.

We arent as brutal as some militarys in the past where your decision is to obey or be shot.

But he hasnt been given this order yet. so this whole thread is mute.

That doesn't negate the fact it is your duty to disobey illegal or immoral orders.  "I was just following orders" isn't a defense against a criminal act.

[McC]

(02-02-2016, 02:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That doesn't negate the fact it is your duty to disobey illegal or immoral orders.  "I was just following orders" isn't a defense against a criminal act.

Right.  Ask the Nazis.

But, it is slippery slope, though, a potential life altering decision and one that, even if morally right, could still end you up in prison.  Not a lot of soldiers are going to be willing to make that call.  It's something that probably sounds better in principle than in reality.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 01:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's a pretty tough one to win isn't it?  The refusing illegal or immoral orders I mean.

There will be a courts martial.  You'll have your day in court like any other defendant.  So you better be damn sure it is illegal or immoral and you better have a good lawyer because the odds will be stacked against you.  Disobeying an illegal/immoral order involves risk.  Obeying an order to clear an objective involves risk.  Risk is part of the job.

Regardless of the risks, if you think the order is illegal or immoral, it is your duty.  A legal and moral obligation.  I can't stress that enough.  You do your best to do the right thing at all times because it is the right thing to do despite the risks.  

I was in the Army so I can only speak for my Army experience. Part of every Army leader's responsibilities is to instill the Army values in the next generation of leaders. Everything I have written on this topic, I learned from leaders. I, in turn, taught those lessons to my soldiers. In conjunction with values, you receive lessons in the law of war. In addition to being a trigger puller, soldiers are also ambassadors. You don't want to dishonor or embarrass yourself or your country by commiting a war crime. And as a leader it's your responsibility to ensure your subordinates aren't commiting war crimes and you aren't giving illegal orders.

I find it hilarious a few jokers around here want to tell me I root against America or it is too bad I came back from a deployment when they don't have the balls to do what I did. Ninjas, please.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 02:07 PM)McC Wrote: Right.  Ask the Nazis.

You mean the ones convicted of war crimes despite claiming they were just following orders?

WTF, over?  I don't even know where you're thought you were going with that one.

Law of War

Quote:But, it is slippery slope, though, a potential life altering decision and one that, even if morally right, could still end you up in prison. Not a lot of soldiers are going to be willing to make that call. It's something that probably sounds better in principle than in reality.

How would you know? The other day you just lectured me about America's morals. Now you're claiming soldiers value their safety over their duty. So which is it young feller? We have morals or we don't have morals? I got news for you, it is their morals which is why they are risking their lives overseas even as you read this.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 01:53 PM)Vlad Wrote: The Vietnamese didn't go around wearing suicide vests blowing up innocent people, they didn't capture and behead people, didn't come to the US and engage in terrorists acts, fly airplanes into buildings, invade Europe and rape their women, or throw gays off rooftops.

And neither did a single Iraqi before we invaded their country.

Some of you will just never learn.  Despite what we have seen with both Iraq and Vietnam the next time a politician tells you there is a boogy man coming to get you you will all start drooling like Pavlov's dog and start telling for us to "BOMB THEM BEFORE WE HAVE TO FIGHT THEM IN THE STREETS OF AMERICA!!!"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: moot.

And I don't think even if the president went on live television and demanded we do such a thing that he would take that as an "order" and just do it.

It would depend on the context.  If the President demands something it is an order.  I don't know where it comes from, probably Hollywood, but some Privates (and above) get this idea if they are told to do something it isn't a lawful order unless you say, "I'm ordering you . . ." or "that's an order."  That's BS.  Without going into general and command authority, if a superior tells a suobordinate, "Mop the floor."  That's a lawful order unless it is illegal or immoral.  If it was clear the President made a specific demand of a specific commander, even on live TV, that's an order.

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 02:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It would depend on the context.  If the President demands something it is an order.  I don't know where it comes from, probably Hollywood, but some Privates (and above) get this idea if they are told to do something it isn't a lawful order unless you say, "I'm ordering you . . ." or "that's an order."  That's BS.  Without going into general and command authority, if a superior tells a suobordinate, "Mop the floor."  That's a lawful order unless it is illegal or immoral.  If it was clear the President made a specific demand of a specific commander, even on live TV, that's an order.

So if Obama goes on tonight and says start nuking Iraq...they'd do it?

I mean providing he explained why to justify the moral end of it.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 01:53 PM)Vlad Wrote: Oh and Im aware of the horrendous treatment prisoners received at the hands of the North Vietnamese, but these were military combatants, so don't start another one of your inane comparisons...."the Vietnamese did bad stuff too".

You are dismissing war crimes on the basis they were committed by "military combatants"?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 02:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: So if Obama goes on tonight and says start nuking Iraq...they'd do it?

I mean providing he explained why to justify the moral end of it.  

If he told a specific commander to do a specific act that's an order.  Whether they would do it or not is another thing.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 01:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Unless those orders are illegal or immoral, then your job is to counsel the idiot giving the illegal/immoral order.  And if they can't be dissuaded from giving an illegal/immoral order then your job is to disobey them.  This is Into to Soldiering 101.

I guess the obvious question is: who determines the morality of an order?

[Vas Deferens]

(02-02-2016, 01:33 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote:  

(02-02-2016, 01:36 PM)McC Wrote: The problem with that is that our enemies choose to surround themselves with civilians.  And, last I checked, killing civilians is their basic MO.  I can't buy that we're the only bad guys here, like you apparently do.

How did you get "we're the only bad guys" out of this?...

Quote:Jihadist's wouldn't have the financial support and willing foot soldiers if we stopped killing civilians and supporting Isreal's wretched occupation and general war crimes.


...But that wouldn't be great for raytheon stock

You didn't.  That's like me inferring from your statement that you believe everything the US has done is completely infallible.  Wouldn't make any sense.    

To the other flaw in your perspective though, we've killed civilians and enemy combatants alike through a variety of ways across many years.  The US classification of those individuals as enemy combatants doesn't really matter when it comes time for these groups to recruit new soldiers.  When a foreign entity sends drones over a village and rains bombs down on mother / sister / fathers; you're going to get a little resentment regardless of what pappy was or wasn't involved in.  Its called blowback big guy and we're smack dab in the middle of the shitstorm.  

[McC]

(02-02-2016, 02:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You mean the ones convicted of war crimes despite claiming they were just following orders?

WTF, over?  I don't even know where you're thought you were going with that one.

Law of War


How would you know?  The other day you just lectured me about America's morals.  Now you're claiming soldiers value their safety over their duty.  So which is it young feller?  We have morals or we don't have morals?  I got news for you, it is their morals which is why they are risking their lives overseas even as you read this.

Where did I ever say that?  Why you making shit up?

What I said was not a lot of soldiers will make that life altering decision on the spur of the moment.   The reality is that if you disobey that order on moral grounds, you can still end up on prison.  And we're talking about people in command here, not foot soldiers.  

[McC]

(02-02-2016, 04:49 PM), Vas Deferens Wrote: How did you get "we're the only bad guys" out of this?...


You didn't.  That's like me inferring from your statement that you believe everything the US has done is completely infallible.  Wouldn't make any sense.    

To the other flaw in your perspective though, we've killed civilians and enemy combatants alike through a variety of ways across many years.  The US classification of those individuals as enemy combatants doesn't really matter when it comes time for these groups to recruit new soldiers.  When a foreign entity sends drones over a village and rains bombs down on mother / sister / fathers; you're going to get a little resentment regardless of what pappy was or wasn't involved in.  Its called blowback big guy and we're smack dab in the middle of the shitstorm.  

Did you mention Jihadists killing civilians?  No.  Only Americans.  And every enemy we've ever fought has killed civilians.  Here you are again painting us as the only bad guys, like I said.

And why are we sending drones?  Because that is where the people who want you and me and all our families dead hide.  Do you not want to fight back?  Do you just want to stand around and take it? 

You don't understand that this is an addiction to killing and the whole notion of a religious war is a bunch of crap?  If we left the Middle East tomorrow and cut off all ties to Israel the next day, do you honestly believe the killing would stop?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess the obvious question is: who determines the morality of an order?

You know the answer.   With every message you have a sender and a receiver. If they disagree on the morality of an order and the order is disobeyed then a courts martial will decide. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-02-2016, 05:53 PM)McC Wrote: Where did I ever say that?  Why you making shit up?

What I said was not a lot of soldiers will make that life altering decision on the spur of the moment.   The reality is that if you disobey that order on moral grounds, you can still end up on prison.  And we're talking about people in command here, not foot soldiers.  

You just did it again. 

[McC]

(02-02-2016, 06:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You know the answer.   With every message you have a sender and a receiver. If they disagree on the morality of an order and the order is disobeyed then a courts martial will decide. 

Honestly, though, in the real world, how often do orders get questioned?  I would venture to say not very often.