‘You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals

I'm a bit confused, was he saying all the top brass of the military are hopelessly inept or that they kicked ass in Kuwait?

Seems a little contradictory, but he's right on one thing. Most wars are built on lies and are characterised by bungling, period.

The US is merely a high profile example

Here's the deal with Canadians not wanting to go to war in the sandbox:
Correct me if I'm wrong but if Canada's military is called upon by the leaders of Canada to go, they go. If the average civilian is against war, good for them, but their name isn't on the enlistment contract.
But it would be ironic if currently serving Canadian troops said "fuck this" and went AWOL and snuck into the U.S. to avoid going to war. I guess Canada would have to build a wall to keep people in at that point!

I suspect if we had to get to the point of calling up unwilling reservists that there'd be very little support for arresting them, let alone forcing them into hiding or flight.
Besides, they could more easily go to just about any other country than America.
It'd be political suicide, even for Trudeau.

not really what I am talking about. I mean would the military on active duty currently serving refuse to fight? If so they can't fly to any other country because they would be flagged and arrested at the airports thanks to international internet/intranet law enforcement databases. Guarantee if they have passports (needed to fly internationally) they are in the databases. As for chasing down "unwilling reservists" that's a little lower on the priority list but they can't run forever either, because they did sign a contract and are thus held accountable.

The average citizen most certainly does have a say in these matters, which is exactly what democracy means.

However with regard to the contract a soldier does sign, guess what?

The United Nations Charter for Human Rights says it's not worth the paper it's written on. Anyone, literally anyone, has the right under international law and convention to be a conscientious objector. That explicitly includes serving military personnel.

Just to be clear, that means if a nation forces a soldier to go to war against their beliefs (or brings charges against them for refusing) it is the nation which is acting criminally, not the soldier.

If you had refused to go to Iraq, for instance, doubtless the US army would in practise have put disciplinary measures in place but they would have been exceeding their legal powers by doing so. Technically they CANNOT make you fight in a conflict you believe to be unjust and they CANNOT punish you for refusing. They are also supposed to teach you this as part of your ethics training.

There are good reasons historically for this which surely shouldn't require explaining.

Technically yes you can play the "conscientious objector" card and in very rare circumstances it is. Is it realistic to expect an entire military to do this? Not no but hell no. And had I refused to deploy to the sandbox (or claimed objector status while in the sandbox) the army would not put disciplinary measures in place, because there would be no need to. They would just end my career/kick me out of the army. I would of course be sent out of the combat zone (if applicable) while my discharge is processed. I would be deemed "unfit for military duty" just the same as if I busted tape (too much body fat) or failed a PT test. I wouldn't face criminal charges, I would just not be allowed to remain in the army because if you aren't "deployable" what good are you? Hit the bricks, pound sand, adios amigo.
This link is pretty informative.

https://girightshotline.org/military-counseling-news-updates/6-myths-about-conscientious-objection

"The average citizen most certainly does have a say in these matters, which is exactly what democracy means." - spot
explain what you mean by "in these matters" please. Are you saying the average civilian citizen has a say in whether their nation goes to war, or not or do you mean any individual military member being a conscientious objector, or something else entirely?

I mean as a voter the average citizen is most certainly in possession of a voice on the question of whether or not to go to war. A government cannot afford to completely alienate the voting public in a democratic nation and in many of the nations you have referred to as "allies" public sentiment is currently strongly anti America.

As for the conscientious objectors, I didn't make any predictions on the likelihood, merely commented on the fact that being one is a human right and therefore the idea of arresting people for refusing is problematic to say the least.

By the way, I see no link?

I just want it pointed out that Tuttle thinks a rich boy who got all his money from his daddy, failed at running casinos, and sexually propositions teenagers has more guts than actual military men.

Man, Dayton may have been a chicken-hawk armchair general, but at least he RESPECTED the men he pretended to be.

This "I'm smarter and tougher than all of 'em!!", routine is a whole new strata of bullshit.
I'm almost impressed!

At least the Usual Gang Of Idiots didn't rep him for it.
At least that's something.

https://girightshotline.org/military-counseling-news-updates/6-myths-about-conscientious-objection

oh the people have a voice - and their leaders should listen but they aren't obligate to follow their every demand. For example let's say that today an enemy force was hell bent on invading England but "the people" didn't want a war. Do you really think that your military would just sit on the sidelines and not fight?

Naturally, but this is not such an instance.

No one is invading Canada.

not in this case, this time. That said if Canada's leadership decides to sent troops to the sandbox (let's say shit gets really heavy there again) and the average citizens are against it would the leadership have the right to send their military anyway or should they defer to the will of the people?

Yep, just mindlessly follow orders...I mean treaty obligations, no matter how stupid and dangerous those obligations are. WW I started that way.

I'd say the government exists to represent and serve the people. By extension the military exists to protect the people from outside threats. I'm not personally a fan of force projection for the most part, but even leaving my own feelings aside I see no future in a government which commits to a war the majority object to. There may be situations wherein that government has access to information or strategic expertise the public do not, but Iraq highlighted how dubious a proposition that can be and why transparency matters.

Let me ask you a question in return, what conceivable reason could Canada have for sending troops?

Diacanu you lie worse than Trump (at least he's generally directionally accurate when it's not simply an exaggeration). Grow up, kid.

All our general corp are probably "better" men than Trump (on criteria of character, more likely to tell truth, integrity).

But they're hammers, and Trump's the hand. Deal with it. Trump got elected on 'get out of perpetual wars.' His general corp, 'just needs more time, this time we'll win Afghan hearts and minds, listen to your intel not your campaign promises.'

Supposing, though, that their expertise allows them insight Trump lacks? Should he listen or impose campaign promises onto a situation?

I don't believe Afghanistan can be "won" to be honest, but the existing strategy was a controlled withdrawal anyway, so what is Trump's goal here? His campaign promise of withdrawal or some version of victory which remains out of reach?

Generally directionally accurate?

You're taking waffle words to a new plane, Kellyanne.

Big Macs stacked a mile high, exaggeration.

Biggest audience ever (maybe a lie, but who friggin cares?).

You'll have to cite some the millions of lies the "fact checkers" report for the directionally true lies, which is many/most of them.

Plus people make mistakes (no leftist on earth thinks Trump's infallible). I'd guess fewer than 10-15% of Trump's "lies" are on the level of "I didn't have sex with that woman," or "you'll be able to keep your doctors and premiums won't go up." (blatant untruths -directionally wrong- and known to be untrue when spoken)


And you should try that argument on your boss next time, spot: "I'll do what I want not what you order because I know more than you."

Unless it's the hand of a black Democrat, then Fema death camps, and Jade Helm.

I'm a lucky guy.

Day to day I'm usually the one doing the telling. When I'm not it's mostly because I'm being asked for an opinion by an outside party, be they a court, local authority or the police.

That being said, I do find it's worth listening to my staff because by and large they're skilled professionals who know what they're about and work best when they feel valued.

I think you took meaning from my post, however, that wasn't intended. I actually wanted to know your thoughts, not shoot you down.

if you've ever had a boss (been employed) then you have had to "mindlessly" follow orders at some point.

Nope. I've questioned executive decisions and been told "It's my way or the highway," but at least I questioned them.

The U. S. Is Canada’s boss?

I would have to research if Canada has any foreign interests, investments, or any type of footprint outside their borders, military or not. If they aren't a complete "hermit kingdom" then at some point bad actors could very conceivably do harm to Canadian citizens when abroad. This could lead to an escalation which warrants military action, and Canada would then deploy their forces to foreign shores.
That would be scenario within the realm of possibility.

WAB does, and 14th has his back.

you questioned them? Wow, what a rebel you are! Bottom line did you quit or do what they said? My point is even in the military you can indeed question what your superiors say, but bring a logical argument or suggestion with you and be tactful. In other words, have your ducks in order and be professional. You may get your way or you may not, just like in the civilian corporate world.

That's not the scenario either.

We are talking about being an ally of the US in a situation where many of us perceive the US as being a bad actor. It's primarily the US's behaviour which has put lives and interests at risk, so in your scenario the question would become whether Canada should take up arms against you.

What does @oldfella1962 think of Adolf Eichmann?

Quite literally the very reason the rights of conscientious objectors were codified into international law no less.

That's called being mindful, not mindless which, by your own admission, is what you are.