U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Trump declares airspace over Venezuela closed

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 753
  • Views: 20K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Yes, on the question of whether or not Congress telling the military to not follow rules and the potential real-life impact that could have, I don't see any way Trump is involved. I see two parties: Congressional Democrats and Military personnel.
Click to expand...
Who is the commander in chief of the armed forces?
 
ZenMode said:
Again, he didn't tell the military to not follow orders.
Click to expand...
Again, your original issue was that members of Congress “implied” that what Trump was doing was illegal.
Then you said Rand was just “asking questions.”
When confronted with the fact that Rand didn’t merely imply that the killings were illegally and also wasn’t just asking questions, but said so directly and emphatically, now you shift to claiming your real issue was that some in Congress said not to follow illegal orders. Something every member of our military already knows.
 
lawtig02 said:
??? What does THAT have to do with whether a soldier should follow illegal orders given by the commander in chief of the armed forces???
Click to expand...
"I don't know why those people sprayed water ALL OVER my neighbor's house. The fact that their house was literally on fire is completely irrelevant to the fact that these other individuals showed up and sprayed water everywhere. I demand answers!"
 
I think we are, sadly, discovering that professional bosiders are among those who would support Trump even if he shot someone in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico . . . I mean, Fifth Avenue.
 
ChileG said:
Again, your original issue was that members of Congress “implied” that what Trump was doing was illegal.
Then you said Rand was just “asking questions.”
When confronted with the fact that Rand didn’t merely imply that the killings were illegally and also wasn’t just asking questions, but said so directly and emphatically, now you shift to claiming your real issue was that some in Congress said not to follow illegal orders. Something every member of our military already knows.
Click to expand...
Nope. I said that Congress implied that war crimes had already been committed AND were telling military personnel not to follow orders.

Like I said earlier, and mean it this time, I give up. To me this is an obvious issue, but clearly most others either a) don't see an issue or b) want to say 'but, but, but... what about Trump".

the big bang theory sheldon GIF
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. I said that Congress implied that war crimes had already been committed AND were telling military personnel not to follow orders.

Like I said earlier, and mean it this time, I give up. To me this is an obvious issue, but clearly most others either a) don't see an issue or b) want to say 'but, but, but... what about Trump".

the big bang theory sheldon GIF
Click to expand...
What does the Commander in Chief have to do with the military?
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. I said that Congress implied that war crimes had already been committed AND were telling military personnel not to follow orders.

Like I said earlier, and mean it this time, I give up. To me this is an obvious issue, but clearly most others either a) don't see an issue or b) want to say 'but, but, but... what about Trump".

the big bang theory sheldon GIF
Click to expand...
I never said anything about, “bbbbbut what about Trump.”

So, to sum up:
You are 100% okay with Rand stating explicitly that these killings are illegal, as long as he doesn’t ALSO remind the troops not to do things that are illegal.
Okay, lol.
 
What happens when in the next armed conflict it's two American service members clinging to a wreckage of a boat that get murdered in a second strike?

Seriously, are you willing to say this is fair game both now and later? Or is there a magical hypocrite rules that says the Trump Administration can commit war crimes, but later when other nation state actors decide "what's good f or the goose is good for the gander" then we can just magically shove the genie back in the bottle?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Let's assume for a moment that you don't give a fuck about a Venezuelan mariner, but If you care even a little bit about the men and women of our armed forces, you know precisely how jaw dropping asinine, dangerous, and insane, normalizing the execution of defeated warriors on the battlefield is.

Seriously, I want to hear a board Pub's thinking on how the fuck American service men and women are not going to die ghastly deaths in the future because of your pathological need to excuse every excess of the Trump Administration.
 
Ddseddse said:
What happens when in the next armed conflict it's two American service members clinging to a wreckage of a boat that get murdered in a second strike?

Seriously, are you willing to say this is fair game both now and later? Or is there a magical hypocrite rules that says the Trump Administration can commit war crimes, but later when other nation state actors decide "what's good f or the goose is good for the gander" then we can just magically shove the genie back in the bottle?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Let's assume for a moment that you don't give a fuck about a Venezuelan mariner, but If you care even a little bit about the men and women of our armed forces, you know precisely how jaw dropping asinine, dangerous, and insane, normalizing the execution of defeated warriors on the battlefield is.

Seriously, I want to here a board Pub's thinking on how the fuck American service men and women are not going to die ghastly deaths in the future because of your pathological need to excuse every excess of the Trump Administration.
Click to expand...
I asked this near the very beginning of this thread’s creation. Still waiting for an answer.

Edit: my question was similar, but more along lines of, “If another country bombs some Americans on a boat and claim without evidence that they were drug dealers, are you going to be okay with that?”
 
Ddseddse said:
What happens when in the next armed conflict it's two American service members clinging to a wreckage of a boat that get murdered in a second strike?

Seriously, are you willing to say this is fair game both now and later? Or is there a magical hypocrite rules that says the Trump Administration can commit war crimes, but later when other nation state actors decide "what's good f or the goose is good for the gander" then we can just magically shove the genie back in the bottle?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Let's assume for a moment that you don't give a fuck about a Venezuelan mariner, but If you care even a little bit about the men and women of our armed forces, you know precisely how jaw dropping asinine, dangerous, and insane, normalizing the execution of defeated warriors on the battlefield is.

Seriously, I want to hear a board Pub's thinking on how the fuck American service men and women are not going to die ghastly deaths in the future because of your pathological need to excuse every excess of the Trump Administration.
Click to expand...
Good lord, man. Would you PLEASE think about the TEMPERATURE???
1764624904083.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top