All Activity
- Today
-
-this isn’t gonna be some 20 year boondoggle -look we might have to spend the next 100 years playing whack-a-mole bombing Iran into submission Even better! A 100 year boondoggle where we don’t even have the moral high ground of being able to claim we’re trying to bring democracy to a backward country. At least now we’re saying the quiet part out loud.
-
You mean like the missiles they've been lobbing all over the place for a few years now? Pointless hypothetical. We're obviously capable of holding the island. Casualties are part of the job. A shitty part, but not a surprising one. We've already found out that the Iranians have a much longer range missile capability than previously believed, what other secrets do we wait to find out until our cities getting hit? Marines die so the civilians don't have to. This is nothing new. Yup. And at the end, Iran has no nuclear program. We've already discussed how that's not worth it to you. It's absolutely worth it to me. Absolutely no part of this has to escalate into nation building. You just don't see any other way because that's been our reality for decades. But we are perfectly capable of murdering Iranian politicians, sanctioning their economy, and blowing up their factories, especially with the Israelis providing the Intel, for the next hundred years. And there's no way that they can have a nuclear program if we keep doing that. It's not just unlikely, it's impossible. We were not escalated into Iraq or Afghanistan. We proudly marched into that Quagmire, still furious from 9/11. This is not then.
-
-
@FourFans and @Negat0ry , you guys are going after the "illegal orders" straw man pretty hard. You can let it go. 17D is questioning the legality of the entire operation based on a court-established timeline precedent which has been repeatedly used to side-step and violate the constitution for decades before you, me, or anyone else ever considered joining the military. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, and so on. In precisely zero of these 'operations' did Congress ever declare war. Again, you can spare me the refrain to article 8. We can all read. Someone else did a good job drawing out the distinction for you: yes, you have a basis and duty to question the legality of orders like "drop a bomb on this mosque." That's not what 17D was doing. As a line officer, you're on pretty shaky ground the second you start engaging in constitutional lawyership and pontificating about who does or doesn't have the authority to deploy me. My intent was to underscore the hypocrisy of asking questions on this basis now, after swearing an oath rooted in the very precedent he now seems to be trying to overturn. You (we) all looked at the rules of the game before we started playing, decided they were satisfactory, and now that we're on the field, some of us have started questioning the rule book because a few are upset that there's a new head coach. That's what I'm calling out. That's the opposite of the officership I'm talking about. It's rooted in self-service, not service to the country. It points either at the lack of introspection someone had when they swore the oath, or a newly found distaste for the flavor of the month. Neither are very officer-like. Feel free to misread this yet again and continue white knighting for the constitution.
-
gamerjake1000 joined the community
-
-
And what happens when a few thousand marines are on Kharg island and then Iran, having now lost access to their own fossil fuel infrastructure, just says fuck it and starts lobbing TBMs at the place? Missiles are already getting through in PSAB and Tel Aviv, how do you think this is gonna go when we have ground troops on Iran’s doorstep as sitting ducks holding some shithole oil depot? God forbid a bunch of marines are injured or killed holding this stupid island, and then what happens? We just take our ball and go home? LOL you and I both know that’ll just be the excuse for the next incremental boots on the ground good idea fairy. Do you guys not see the escalation ladder clearly laid out in front of us? You guys keep saying you won’t support a 20 year nation building boondoggles. Great, thanks for that. Super easy to say in hindsight. But you all seem completely blind to (or supportive of) the incremental escalations sitting right in front of us, that are leading us down this path.
-
-
Anyone have any friends at Pendleton hocking secondhand ammo and anti-tank missiles? Asking for a friend…..
-
-
-
-
They would. I would consider it materially the same as parking a bunch of warships around Iran. At a certain point you have to accept the semantic limitations, and get to the point. And for me, the point is we should not take over Iran and attempt to transform it in the way we did Afghanistan or Iraq. Taking Kharg Island is about taking resources with strategic geopolitical consequences and applying pressure. Kind of like taking Maduro. Outside of starving the regime of money, it does nothing to give the Iranian people a better future, something that I consider their obligation, not ours.
-
I committed war crimes or followed orders I know to be unlawful because my family could only be supported by a military salary. That's a hot take. To your broader point, I agree with officers being generally critical of the nature of their service, but it only takes a quick AI prompt to articulate the inherent conflicts between section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and the Chadha ruling. We've been struggling with it since Jefferson went after the Barbary Pirates. The Congress still had afterbirth on it and already it was coming up with ways to avoid its war-declaring responsibilities, inventing the AUMF. The most consistent interpretation of current law, which I think applies here, is that the president has 90 days to either get congressional approval to keep attacking Iran, or wrap it up. Past that, I personally would believe the operation is exceeding statutory authorization. However I don't think any officer below the rank of general has any moral or legal authority whatsoever to concern themselves with that. An unlawful order is not the same thing as an unlawful campaign. And an order given during an unlawful campaign is not an unlawful order.
-
-
While I do agree with you, in theory, here are some argumentative points. If the Framers’ intent to limit the authority to exercise the military by the president/CinC, then they would’ve written the Constitution to do so. The main reason for Congress to declare war is due to the “power of the purse.” It took Congress until 1973 to create the War Powers Resolution, which one could argue is still vague outside of the president briefing Congress before troop deployment and submitting a report within 48 hours of a deployment. Congress does decide the will of the people, which one could argue since they haven’t done anything to amend the War Powers Resolution since it was signed into law or impeached and removed a president since the resolution was created, then the current construct seems to be supported by the majority of the people.
-
Back to the question asked: I think any employment of conventional ground forces beyond a Venezuela type raid without congressional approval is going too far. To me, that means the 82nd Airborne dropping on any Iranian soil whatsoever. We've gone too long employing military power without the overt approval of Congress, who are supposed to speak on behalf of the people. The will of the American people needs to be behind any grab-and-hold operation (aka invasion). Without congressional approval, the military becomes the President's personal shotgun to wield as he sees fit, which is NOT how it was intended. The CinC determines HOW the military is employed once America has decided it's going to war. The President does not decide the will of the people.For a guy who has a track record of being wrong and having to walk back comments here, you sure are confident in everybody else being wrong. I also explicitly said that we should take Kharg Island. Try not to get an erection while you struggle with ways to make those two statements mutually exclusive.Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution disagrees with you. If you're an officer who swore to defend the document, maybe read it. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-1-1/ALDE_00013587/ More concerning is your logic of "we've been doing it this way before so we should keep doing it". That's dangerously parallel to telling your girlfriend "you said yes last night, so your 'no' means nothing tonight." Officers can and should question orders. Just because they had to comply last time just to keep their jobs doesn't mean they have to do it again. Besides, he's offering an opinion, not declaring something illegal. Opinionated officers, especially those who disagree with the yes-man mentality you are espousing, are critically important to the effectiveness of the US military. Without them we become the Empire from Star Wars. Perhaps you should "put your money where your mouth is" and resign in protest if you don't like a military populated by critical thinking that questions the validity of orders, regardless of what we did last time. Pretty easy to throw principled talk around until it's the livelihood of your own family that's at stake. Maybe slowdown on that front.You’re just reiterating talking points that mean nothing. Literally the biggest nothing statement you can make. How do you do that in an asymmetric situation where the threat of drones and mines alone - literally the threat - makes insurance rates so high that ships cannot go through the strait? Do you have to set up a DMZ 30 miles from the border? Do you have to entirely destroy their whole ballistic missile force? Destroy the ability to launch Shaheds? Good luck. Do you have to kill all Iranian military? The men? How do you stop them from coming back in 2 years pissed off you killed a bunch of their civilians? War and the ability to disrupt is accessible by the Houthis lol. What’s your plan here Stan?Your logic isn’t logicing. You literally were saying “who are you to question the legality of orders.” My suspicion Is that the keyboard warriors here - many of them civilians such as @Lord Ratner - are going to continue to change their minds to fall in line, demonstrating they never really had any principles to start with. Let’s see if that money gets put where the mouths are.
Yeah @FourFans , no one is saying follow illegal orders, but thanks for the re-iteration of the oath. @17D_guy specifically cast this in light of this war being illegal because Congress hasn't authorized it. In other words, he has implied that the operation is de facto illegal since Congress hasn't, what, voted on it? That's what I'm dismissing out of hand. And in any case, if that's the approach he's going to take to this conflict, then my logical follow-up question for him is why didn't he resign at any other point in the last 20 years of wars this country has been fighting which congress didn't authorize? We've all had plenty of time to adjust to the new modern way of war, and if we didn't like it, we could have put our money where our mouth was and quit. Only now we're getting the constitutional scaries??? Put differently, it's the furthest thing from officership I can think of. He stated clearly that he doesn't think this is legal because Congress hasn't authorized it. In no way shape or form does Congress have to authorize military action. That is fully in the President's lane.New footage. Pretty crazyRed, white and blue PC-21 for the USAF About 75 to 100 hours before track select would be right in this beast.
