Veterans' advocates warn of low morale amid L.A. deployment: 'This is not what we signed up for'

[Girlpower]

So, US troops are just supposed to blindly follow orders?
If a President orders in the troops to shoot to kill everyone in a US town that voted heavily against him that's just what they have to do?

War crimes? Fine, just following orders.
If I become President can I order the troops to confiscate all firearms in the US?

Soldiers generally aren't given an explanation for their orders.

In WW2 our soldiers were ordered to fire bomb major cities in Germany that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Should they have disobeyed those orders?

 

[poppopfox]

Soldiers generally aren't given an explanation for their orders.

In WW2 our soldiers were ordered to fire bomb major cities in Germany that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Should they have disobeyed those orders?

Yes

 

[Girlpower]

Yes

At least you are honest.

 

[Tangmo]

Soldiers generally aren't given an explanation for their orders.

In WW2 our soldiers were ordered to fire bomb major cities in Germany that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Should they have disobeyed those orders?

Yes they are.

The troops of each armed service want and need to know why they have been given an order through the uniformed chain of command and what the order leads to. The troops knowing what and why contributes mightily to the success of the mission. Their motivation gets stirred up.

All the armed forces expect to know what their assigned mission is, how they will do it, and to what purpose / objective. What the impact of their success will be and its positive implications for the military campaign or effort they are integral to. This is vital information to the success of the mission throughout the USA armed forces and it is nothing new or novel.

For example, if the enemy holds a bridge and is continually resupplying its troops several miles down the road who are holding up the advance of our forces, it pays immensely for our officers to advise the troops that taking the bridge from the enemy will release our held up troops to resume their advance on the enemy that is no longer being resupplied and receiving replacements via the bridge. Our armed forces officers do not simply say "Charge that bridge" while the troops sit down and say, "Hey, wait a minute captain, let's sit down and talk about this." This ridiculous notion in your Nopower posts is inconceivable.

Your Nopower posts know nothing whatsoever about the armed forces and what's worse, your posts are simplistic child talk that continually says NO to the adult with the factual knowledge and accurate information. I can't say enough times your posts know absolutely nothing about the armed military forces and that you insist on demonstrating this acutely, no matter, and without fail.

 

[Peter]

Soldiers generally aren't given an explanation for their orders.

In WW2 our soldiers were ordered to fire bomb major cities in Germany that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Should they have disobeyed those orders?

There's a vast difference between targeting an enemy and troops being used openly on home soil.
The main reason the allies used carpet bombing in WW2 was that we simply didn't have precision weapons available.
It's hard to target a factory fro high level with unguided bombs.

Yes, I believe any US unit asked to open fire on civilians in the US would not obey those orders as they didn't sign up to be murderers.

 

[Girlpower]

There's a vast difference between targeting an enemy and troops being used openly on home soil.
The main reason the allies used carpet bombing in WW2 was that we simply didn't have precision weapons available.
It's hard to target a factory fro high level with unguided bombs.

Yes, I believe any US unit asked to open fire on civilians in the US would not obey those orders as they didn't sign up to be murderers.

We weren't bombing military targets we were specifically bombing civilians.

Take the bombing of Dresden for example.

There were three waves of bombers. The first wave dropped bombs to crater roads so emergency crews couldn't get equipment around. The second wave were blast bombs to blow out windows. The third wave were incendiary bombs to create fires to burn down houses.

The person who had taken over our bombing raids came under fire for using this tactic but they didn't fire him.

They wouldn't have done all of this if they were just carpet bombing for military targets.

The point is that soldiers followed orders and did this.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Soldiers generally aren't given an explanation for their orders.

In WW2 our soldiers were ordered to fire bomb major cities in Germany that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Should they have disobeyed those orders?

Nope. Bombing Nazis was a virtue.

But those weren't our civilians. You obviously don't understand the nature of the oath service members take.

 

[RF667799]

I would vote for you!

Please force me to turn in my Chinese war rifle that's modified for extra firepower!

 

[Peter]

We weren't bombing military targets we were specifically bombing civilians.

Take the bombing of Dresden for example.

There were three waves of bombers. The first wave dropped bombs to crater roads so emergency crews couldn't get equipment around. The second wave were blast bombs to blow out windows. The third wave were incendiary bombs to create fires to burn down houses.

The person who had taken over our bombing raids came under fire for using this tactic but they didn't fire him.

They wouldn't have done all of this if they were just carpet bombing for military targets.

The point is that soldiers followed orders and did this.

Again there's a vast difference between actions taken during a global war and using troops against your own people.
The US armed forces didn't sign up to kill fellow Americans.

 

[Girlpower]

Again there's a vast difference between actions taken during a global war and using troops against your own people.
The US armed forces didn't sign up to kill fellow Americans.

The topic we are discussing is troops having to follow orders.

Not sure why you are trying to change the topic.

 

[Revelation]

Soldiers generally aren't given an explanation for their orders.

In WW2 our soldiers were ordered to fire bomb major cities in Germany that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

the fire bombing of cities in WW two was totally unnecessary Girl.

actually the whole war wasn't necessary; but since the Oligarchy rebuilt germany in the 30's into a modern war machine, that kinda forced us to destroy what we built.

do you see the bankerz strategy ?

Should they have disobeyed those orders?

we should never have 'orders' such as these.

think deeeeper, live longer.

dig deeeeper, live longer.


.

 

[Girlpower]

the fire bombing of cities in WW two was totally unnecessary Girl.

actually the whole war wasn't necessary; but since the Oligarchy rebuilt germany in the 30's into a modern war machine, that kinda forced us to destroy what we built.

do you see the bankerz strategy ?




we should never have 'orders' such as these.

think deeeeper, live longer.

dig deeeeper, live longer.


.

Well you are missing the point of what we are debating.

 

[Revelation]

Well you are missing the point of what we are debating.

au contraire.

we should never have orders to fire bomb anything Girl.

.

 

[Girlpower]

au contraire.

we should never have orders to fire bomb anything Girl.

.

But we did.

The discussion is if soldiers need to obey orders or not today.

 

[Revelation]

But we did.

The discussion is if soldiers need to obey orders or not today.

these issues never change. kinda my point.

should never happen, for ANY reason.

 

[Girlpower]

these issues never change. kinda my point.

should never happen, for ANY reason.

But it does happen so what should soldiers do when it happens?

Not wanting it to happen doesn't mean it won't.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The topic we are discussing is troops having to follow orders.

Not sure why you are trying to change the topic.

Lawful orders.

Violating posse comitatus isn't lawful.

 

[Girlpower]

Lawful orders.

Violating posse comitatus isn't lawful.

What is a lawful order?

 

[Hamish Howl]

What is a lawful order?

An order from an officer that does not violate civil law or the UCMJ.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[Girlpower]

An order from an officer that does not violate civil law or the UCMJ.

How hard is that to understand?

The UCMJ is essentially a guideline for punishments not rules to follow so the question now becomes if civil law applies outside of the nation.

American laws do not apply outside of our nation.

 

[j brown's body]

Good question because most of their deployments are for riot control.

Well, they had been deployed to Iraq and were recently helping with fire recovery, so not necessarily.

Usually its for real riots, not the burning of a few cars. Let me refresh your memory.

 

[j brown's body]

The UCMJ is essentially a guideline for punishments not rules to follow so the question now becomes if civil law applies outside of the nation.

American laws do not apply outside of our nation.

Either way, morale apparently sucks and that's not good. Although you guys might like that the Guard is characterized by thugs, because that is who it will attract.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The UCMJ is essentially a guideline for punishments not rules to follow so the question now becomes if civil law applies outside of the nation.

American laws do not apply outside of our nation.

I can name two that do, right off the top of my head.

 

[j brown's body]

Again there's a vast difference between actions taken during a global war and using troops against your own people.
The US armed forces didn't sign up to kill fellow Americans.

Nor did the state ask it to.

 

[Tangmo]

The topic we are discussing is troops having to follow orders.

Your posts have no clue that uniformed military commanders of the USA armed forces do not give commands / orders to shoot unarmed civilians in America or anywhere they are deployed. In America against unarmed civilians NOT. The troops do not get any such illegal orders from their officers at anytime. USA officers across the armed forces do not give any such illegal order to their troops. So it is not a question of following orders, it is about USA armed forces officers never giving any such illegal orders to the troops.

Troops of the USA deployed into the streets of America do not receive orders from their uniformed officers to fire on unarmed innocent civilians. Officers of the USA armed forces do not order their troops to shoot unarmed civilians in the streets or anywhere in the USA or abroad. Your posts that dwell in the past world wars abroad have no clue. Your Nopower posts don't know a modern and contemporary military order from an order at MacDonald's.

Military land forces anywhere shooting unarmed innocent civilians is a violation of the post WW II Law of Land Warfare and it is against the post WW II Laws of War. It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and in particular the 1949 post WW II Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the protection of civilians against armed military force. Your Nopower posts have no clue of these post World War II developments in the laws governing the use of a nation's armed forces domestically and internationally. Your Nopower posts don't know what a military order is and is not.

Officers of the USA armed forces do not give orders to fire on unarmed civilians. The same is true of NATO member states as per the NATO Treaty of 1949.

Lieber Institute for Law and Land Warfare | West Point

The Lieber Institute at West Point facilitates and contributes to the global dialogue on today’s most pressing and complex law of war issues. Through its research, publications, events and education, it strives to advance the understanding and maintain the primacy of law in today’s armed conflicts.

lieber.westpoint.edu