Civil unrest and the military.

She could be right (though it would be news to me because I've never heard about deaths of that nature occurring in significant numbers) but that particular link doesn't support the assertion.

Yes, but would that actually make her right or just lucky considering she could not back up her argument? At any rate I would imagine if you could handle boot camp in the carolinas or GA you would be fine in the middle east. I am pretty sure the whole ordeal teaches you about your body, stamina, and how to deal with hot. If you were of the sort that cannot physically handle it I would assume you would have been discharged on medical.

Its not solely down to this one issue. How many of these guys has he now fallen out with and then subsequently thrown under the bus? Surely most Trumpists can join the dots and work out that all of these top military officials can't all be part of the swamp or the deep state. Surely a military man would get it? When does it get to the stage that you say, enough is enough and actually start questioning him? Why the blind loyalty to someone so incompetent? For someone who bangs on about your military experience, your sense of duty, how the average person wouldn't understand - for you to follow this clown blindly is frankly bizarre!

And to be honest, I'm also surprised at @Paladin , ok he's not ex military, but he has got a tendency to get his panties in a mess about the US forces. I remember a good few years back he was less than impressed at people using the stars and stripes flag as a table cloth. I would expect that @Paladin is deeply uncomfortable with all of this - whether he chooses to acknowledge it on WF I'm not sure......

Given the number of people who Trump fires or who quit on him, and who subsequently end up fighting with him only for him to say that they were stone useless at their jobs, you'd have thought that would imply some responsibility falls on him for hiring so many deadbeats in the first place?

Recognizing that Trump turns on his own appointees on a dime and will try to refashion the narrative in his favour, last night CNN ran almost five minutes worth of clips of Trump praising "Mad Dog" Mattis.

Trump is that kid in the classroom who always blames everyone but himself.

He should make a campaign video about it: "Vote for me! I'm totally clueless about how to pick good people for my team, but I promise you that my (revolving door) teams during the second term won't be any worse than during the first term!"

Since his supporters lap up pretty much whatever he says, they should like that, too.

Your reasoning is sound (you can handle it in training you should be okay in the sandbox) but here's the glitch:
in training you have frequent water breaks and work breaks. For example if it's heat category 4 you can work for one hour then rest 15 minutes or whatever. Also you can strip down to T-shirts or untuck your boots or whatever to better ventilate your body. In other words you work and train as safely as possible - no problem so far.

But when you get to the sandbox in an actual "permanent party" unit all that shit goes out the window!
You have to wear flak vests, helmets, and other restrictive heavy gear that raises your body temp even more.
In 2003 none of our vehicles had AC and quite often we couldn't even roll down the windows very far because bad actors could toss a grenade into the cab of your truck. You might be in the truck for many hours at a time. You might be wearing a gas mask now & then which restricts your breathing & raises your body heat even more. And when it's time for heavy hard work there are no breaks if you are an NCO - you better be going balls-to-the-wall to set an example for your crew.

True though about basic training/job training weeding out medical problems. They catch 99 percent of any underlying medical issues so by the time somebody is in a by-god permanent party unit there won't be any curve balls for the command to worry about in that regard.

You might remember the Iraq casualties thread (which seems to have been archived, because I couldn't find it). Reservists were a big part of the invasion, and I recall a number of them being over 40, with one at age 56 - cause of death, heart attack. If it were anyone but OF, I might do more searching but he'd dismiss it anyway. Not worth the effort.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-military-tensions-george-floyd.amp

The argument that the president can not use the military in the cities because it's illegal and unconstitutional is wrong.

The constitutional argument is wrong because nothing in the Constitution says the military can not be used on American soil.

There are laws however against using the military on American soil. That being the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. However both acts provide exceptions and the Insurrection Act itself is the major exception to Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy US Military and federalized National Guard units within the United States to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion.

The riots started May 26. Today is June 4. It has been ten days of rioting and looting not just in one American city but in dozens of cities in at least 24 states. I just saw a video posted today of people looting a train while it was rolling down the rails. Slowly, because that was the only way the people could get on the train to loot it and I guess the conductor was afraid of killing anyone by going faster.

You'd be hard pressed to look anyone in the face and claim that America is not suffering civil disorder.

Does anyone think the American people are going to support a another week of looting? As of today 58% want the military deployed to the cities to end this.

In order to use the Insurrection Act the President has to give clear notice to the public by issuing a proclamation that tells the people causing the disorder to cease their actions and go home. If they fail to heed the proclamation the US military and/or federalized National Guard units can be sent to the various areas.

The Insurrection Act empowers the President to act if, when requested by a state's legislature or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address insurrection that prevents a state from enforcing the law, and to address an insurrection which results in the Constitutionally-secured rights and the state is unable or unwilling to protect said rights. Also Insurrection Act allows the federal government to use National Guard and federal troops in a state without that states permission.

The military will follow the orders of the Commander-In-Chief as long as he is following the law. I know the lot of you like to claim that Trump follows no laws but he does follow the laws. Any general that doesn't want to follow orders is free to resign their commission. I can understand that the generals don't want to get involved but this situation cannot be allowed to go on for much longer. This situation is far worse than other instances where a president ordered federal troops into an area to bring it under control.

How can anyone say that Bush sending in the 7th Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Division to Los Angeles in 1992 to finally end five days of riots is okay but if Trump sent in the military to end 10 plus days of rioting not just in one city/state but in twenty-four states that he's in the wrong?

How many more days of riots and looting before you all say it's okay for Trump to use the armed forces? Take note that you little group of lefties and Never-Trumpers on this board do not even come close to representing America as a whole. Wordforge of late is nothing but an echo chamber for you guys.

Now Trump has threatened to use the military and all of you are foaming at the mouth as usual. But let's look at what Trump hasn't done:

1. He hasn't activated the Insurrection Act.
2. He hasn't federalized any National Guard units.
3. He hasn't moved any federal troops into any state. The exception to this is the Washington D.C. as that is federal land. Also the Washington D.C. National Guard Army and Air Force units report directly to the president. They are the only guard units that do so. Currently both D.C. guard units are run by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force.

So if he hasn't done these things why is he talking about using the military?

1. He had to light a fire under the governors of the states. They don't want federal troops in the cities because that sends a clear signal they failed to do their jobs. It is their job as the governor of the state to use the state National Guard and local law enforcement to bring an end to riots and looting. We see that the governors are now starting to actually move and get tough to end this. Notice in his call to the governors that he told the governors that they had to dominate and use law enforcement and their National Guard units to end the riots. He didn't say he was going to do it for them. He told them to do it.
   
2. The Democrat governors were intentionally dragging their feet. Let me be blunt: The Democrat party is encouraging the rioting through it's inaction. The Democrat governors should have immediately called out the National Guard when the riots and looting started. Has anyone noticed that no major political figures in the Democrat party have forcefully come out against the riots? The Democrats took a political calculation and decided that it would help them in November. They were also hoping Trump would activate the military too fast so they could scream he was a dictator all the way to November but he still hasn't done it and now they realize that the longer it goes on the bigger hit they are going to take in November. Especially as it becomes clear that these riots were coordinated and planned in advance by Antifa. George Floyd's murder was the spark they needed. Had he not died it would have been some other person or incident which sparked these riots.

Now that the federal government is concentrating on Antifa we will see arrests of the organizations members. It is a horizontal organization. It has no clear single leader but make no mistake it does have leaders and people who fund it. Those people are going to be dealt with. Antifa also thinks that using things like Signal will protect it's communications. It won't.

But you all feel free to continue at Trump.

This is merely an intellectual discussion, as we obviously already have a standing Army, but since you bring up the constitutionality, it should be pointed out that the framers thought the constitution didn’t allow for us to have a standing Army, so yeah, they didn’t limit its use.

The Navy was supposed to be a permanent force (and thus maintained) while any army was supposed to be only temporary for times of war (and thus raised) and drawn from the state militias.

That’s why funding for armies was strictly limited to a max of two years at a time. And why we didn’t have a standing Army for the first 100/150 years (depending on how you look at it) of our history.

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Constitution says quite clearly that it is the state militias (in modern times the National Guard) that are to be used to ‘execute the laws of the Union’ and ‘suppress insurrections‘.

One minor quibble with that - the "militia" is any able-bodied male (these days probably person rather than male) between what, 16 and 60 or some such? Anyway, the state/local authorities can call up and deputize anyone as "militia." But in our modern time, the National Guard is already there, already established, already equipped, and good to go. But implying that the National Guard and the militia are the same thing is incorrect.

I agree with all of this.

So does Trump.

Which is why he told the governors to deploy their National Guard units to dominate the riotous areas and end the riots.

But Trump does under US Federal Law have the right to deploy the United States military within the country to bring an end to this civil disorder.

I truly hope he doesn't have to do it but it is an option that has to be on the table.

a national guard is organized and regulated whereas militias are neither?

wow one person had a heart attack! Yet almost everyone else in the Iraq casualties list was killed by the enemy, friendly fire, accidents and so forth. Weird yesterday you said more people had heart attacks & heat stroke or whatever than died...from...combat related incidents! Do you remember yesterday? It was the day before today.

I just don't know how else to phrase it but you were talking out your ass, but you won't admit you were completely wrong. And telling somebody who was there and saw a lot more soldiers getting killed from combat than from natural causes that they are wrong? You may be delusional but I admire your tenacity in sticking to your version of the truth.

Side note the E-7 and E-4 pulling OP duty just outside the wire who got their throats slit before insurgents stole their vehicle and weapons and left a trail of E-7 and E-4 body parts behind them? I bet they really died of clogged arteries and diabetes!

If a militia is formed it can and should be well regulated. I don’t see how you can have a militia without it being organized and regulated.

true - an unregulated militia is just a glorified mob.

What I’ve been saying among my friends is this. Trump had an opportunity with covid and had an opportunity with these riots to stand up and unite the people. You’d think with his ego, he’d stand up and be the hero that everyone wants. He could have been one of the greats, but didn’t and that’s a real shame. What he should do is call for a joint session of congress and propose legislation to address these concerns of the protesters. Unfortunately, we haven’t heard from him. Mattis is correct, this country has a serious lack of leadership across the board. Joe Biden is not much of a better choice and I don’t think he has the leadership skills to pull us out of it so I don’t know what’s going to happen, but we’re truly fucked.

Hmmm....not really because if Biden gets elected he'll just be a figurehead, a puppet for the Democratic regime. Thus much more competent stable Democrats will tell him what to say, believe and think. He will indeed listen to his handlers because he'll be grateful just to be playing president. If the Democrats actually have enough well meaning puppet masters pulling the strings we might be okay.

What's depressing is all the young talented intelligent leadership on both sides that is going to waste.
It's as if the Kentucky Derby left all the best horses in the stables, and instead hijacked a truck full of glue factory bound rejects to run the track.

No, not really. To do what you're suggesting would mean he'd have to completely change who he is and that was never going to happen.

I love the part where he whines that he's as much a victim as Lincoln.

I can’t remember the exact quote, but it’s something to do with trying times like these which shows a man’s true character. I know Trump’s always been a douche bag, but I was really hoping his egotistical mind would make him step up and try to at least look like the savior of the people. Even Lex Luther would be smart enough to figure that out.

Speaks volumes about Trump that even a comic book villain would be more self aware.

I was thinking the same thing as I was typing that.

Who did you support in this year's Republican primaries?

Win Win Win as a write-in candidate. I figured with a name like that he couldn't lose!