Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see you don't have an answer as to what all of these generals that know "how to lead", have proposed as a solution to the problem at hand is, either.
Therefore, their talk is, at the very best, no better than Trump's is. And at the worst, seditious, and counterproductive.
CN
The generals objected to trump using the military to do the job of the police. The police made many arrests and have tamped down the protests, which have become primarily peaceful with continuing police attendance. The task of the military is to protect against FOREIGN THREAT. The right of citizens to protest is protected by the Constitution. It is the job of Police to keep the domestic peace.
The generals objected to trump using the military to do the job of the police. The police made many arrests and have tamped down the protests, which have become primarily peaceful with continuing police attendance. The task of the military is to protect against FOREIGN THREAT. The right of citizens to protest is protected by the Constitution. It is the job of Police to keep the domestic peace.
No argument there.
And there was no invocation of the act because the constitutional parameters weren't met. So why are these generals making a big deal about it, other than orange man bad. They have outed themselves as leftists. That is the point, and if one can follow a little bit of logic here, the point is now proven.
There's another component to this. When Trump threatened to invoke the act, one would surmise it was a statement to strike a bit of fear into the lawless mob, to motivate them to disband. Kinda the way a state trooper might flash his reds on at the guy speeding past at 15 over, to get him to slow down, without actually citing him.
And then you have these generals, and of course the left wing media, make a big to do out of that. just further adding fuel to the problem at hand, instead of playing along, to help resolve the problem and restore order.
It's almost like they don't want to see order restored, huh?
As far as your foreign only statement, it is false. Go read the statute posted by Mr Baxter in the posts on the page preceding this one.
I see you don't have an answer as to what all of these generals that know "how to lead", have proposed as a solution to the problem at hand is, either.
If I'm holding a chainsaw, and someone insists on using said chainsaw to trim his dog's fur, the correct answer is "That is a bad idea, a chainsaw is very ill suited for that purpose and you would not like the outcome."
I'm not obliged to look up dog grooming salons for him.
Trump's fascist bent showed to all with the Bible gambit.
"Fascism will show up with a flag in one hand and a Bible in the other". Trump to a tee.
fascism (socialism lite) is a leftist ideology...
The American people will never knowingly adopt fascism or socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the fascist/socialist program, until one day Americawill be a fascio-socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
If I'm holding a chainsaw, and someone insists on using said chainsaw to trim his dog's fur, the correct answer is "That is a bad idea, a chainsaw is very ill suited for that purpose and you would not like the outcome."
I'm not obliged to look up dog grooming salons for him.
Wrong, try again.
The question is, what have the generals, that the left in this thread are saying have the knowledge and are leaders, proposed to fix the problem?
Let's examine your own example. If you are holding the chainsaw (the implement that can create,or prevent the damage) You said you would say that is a "bad idea". But it isn't your responsibility to tell them why. Would you then proceed to hand them the chainsaw, without attempting to educate them on a better way, assuming you had one?
Same applies here. A bunch of windbag lefty generals saying that's not a good idea, but I'm not saying what my better idea is....... Because they, a)don't HAVE ONE, or b) want to continue the violence.
Keep in mind, those generals SWORE an OATH, to defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. You have no oath to defend the dog. They DO have an obligation.
The question is, what have the generals, that the left in this thread are saying have the knowledge and are leaders, proposed to fix the problem?
We don't want generals to get mixed up in civil disturbances. Really, we don't. Tianenmen and all that.
Quote:
Same applies here. A bunch of windbag lefty generals saying that's not a good idea, but I'm not saying what my better idea is....... Because they, a)don't HAVE ONE, or b) want to continue the violence.
Generals are highly trained specialists in applying military force. Not crowd control or law enforcement. They're experts in their field, but neither qualified nor obliged to tell those charged with keeping the peace among civilians how to do their job.
We don't want generals to get mixed up in civil disturbances. Really, we don't. Tianenmen and all that.
Generals are highly trained specialists in applying military force. Not crowd control or law enforcement. They're experts in their field, but neither qualified nor obliged to tell those charged with keeping the peace among civilians how to do their job.
Neither are they qualified nor obliged to tell the POTUS how to do his, they are obliged to advise and counsel, him, BUT certainly not in a public forum, (Remember Douglas MacArthur?) and only if they are active duty. That doesn't apply to Mattis, and perhaps a few of the others there. Esper should be sacked at the earliest possible convenience.
If I'm holding a chainsaw, and someone insists on using said chainsaw to trim his dog's fur, the correct answer is "That is a bad idea, a chainsaw is very ill suited for that purpose and you would not like the outcome."
I'm not obliged to look up dog grooming salons for him.
Gee, I thought it was just "Orange man bad". HAHAHA
Neither are they qualified nor obliged to tell the POTUS how to do his, they are obliged to advise and counsel, him, BUT certainly not in a public forum...
You think the chairman of the JCOS hasn't had private meetings with representatives for the administration, if not the Orange One himself? That it has come to this should tell you something.
I'm curious how many of those generals are registered Democrats? How many are war hawks that don't like it when Trump refuses to invade Syria and Iran?
Trump is annoying and I don't really care for defending him, but the opinions of a bunch of retired generals doesn't count for much in my book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
