Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Trump ignores the Pentagon

185 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hankenhunter
3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Damn they did everything in that tweet but say "this sucks but we're gonna do it anyways" 

There were no happy soldiers on those sites. I won't release links as I felt like a peeping tom.

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

There were no happy soldiers on those sites. I won't release links as I felt like a peeping tom.

That's good to hear. I was reading not too long ago that the Qanon cult is pretty strong with the younger enlisted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The military itself argued against such a move. Suggesting that Trump has all the facts ?

I'm not "suggesting" anything.  I'm stating that the president of the U.S. is the chief executive AND the Commander-in-Chief of the military and can take such actions at will.  The fact that his staff recommended a different course could simply mean they have their own agendas and biases.  Remember, a couple of times already they've been ready to send in the aircraft and bomb when he decided not to.  This is not some overarching policy decision that is going to set an enduring precedent.  This is Trump commiserating with military members who he feels did not get justice.

But, by all means, let's assume the worst.  After all, it IS Trump.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

What if abandoning South Korea is the last straw for the military?  If Pence has a private meeting with the joint chiefs, it may be the 25th Amendment before impeachment.

Wouldn't be prudent.  Fortunately, it's just another coup fantasy of the Left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
8 hours ago, and then said:

What would they be?

They could be a multitude of things.  Soldiers will be less wary of how they act when it comes to combatants and detainees.  This could alter SOFA agreements to allow countries to pursue their own charges if they feel a war crime is being committed, instead of letting the US handle it, because they see it isn't being handled properly.  That would be an absolute disaster.  The expiration of the SOFA agreement is the main reason we withdrew from Iraq when we did.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
8 hours ago, and then said:

 I applaud his move to restore these men to an honorable status. 

There is nothing honorable about committing war crimes.  It's honorable to serve the right way.  To do what you're supposed to do.  

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

They could be a multitude of things.  Soldiers will be less wary of how they act when it comes to combatants and detainees.  This could alter SOFA agreements to allow countries to pursue their own charges if they feel a war crime is being committed, instead of letting the US handle it, because they see it isn't being handled properly.  That would be an absolute disaster.  The expiration of the SOFA agreement is the main reason we withdrew from Iraq when we did.

It seems to me that this action is quite limited and from the reading I've done, these guys were placed in some sketchy gray areas and judged harshly for choices they made in the field.  One killed a bomb maker.  I realize that the UCMJ is pretty darned rigid where taking life is concerned but I think I'd have done the same thing before I'd have released someone who could kill me or my buddies in the future.  If Trump erred with this choice at all, I think his motives were still honorable.  He really appreciates the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and he's reaching out to cancel what he sees as injustice or maybe prosecutorial misconduct.  It may well be the result of the way HE has been treated.  

I doubt that his action is going to cause a sudden, severe moral degradation in our warfighters.  Seriously, would seeing this controversy cause you to change the way you executed your duties?  Would you be more likely to use deadly force without weighing the consequences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
11 hours ago, Great Old Man said:

I'm none of supporter of President Moon or President Park.

I know that politic is just a illusion from the Deep State.

However recently Korea people are divide into 2 groups.

 Korean conservative are mostly follower of President Park,

and Korean liberal are mostly follower of president Moon.

Korean conservative: Pro-America, Pro-president Park, hate communism, China, DPRK, Christian

Korean liberal: Pro-China, DPRK(not all, but mostly yes), Pro-president Moon, Hate Japan, Nationalism

 

 

It's odd to me that Korea would have a pro-china element at all.

Seeing how China backed North Korea in the war.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
6 hours ago, and then said:

Wouldn't be prudent.  Fortunately, it's just another coup fantasy of the Left.

Wouldn't be prudent indeed.  You have to blame me for this one.  Not a desire, just a speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
11 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

I don't know anything about McConnell (sp?) - except he's some old dude with a very pinched look on his face. :unsure2:  Or is that Moscow Mitch?  The fellow you guys are always talking about? lol

The very same.  Married to Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation.  You could google her for some insights from a  different angle.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

 

 

11 hours ago, and then said:

Obama refused to give any weapons to Ukraine when they needed them most because he didn't want to offend Vladimir.  Remember his accidental hot mike chat with Medvedev?  Hypocrites the LOT of you. 

 Obama did some very stupid  and reprehensible things.  I used to think anyway until you opened my eyes..  I would certainly be a hypocrite if blamed him for just being another great president who wanted to keep us out of another war like our current leader

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
12 hours ago, and then said:

Obama refused to give any weapons to Ukraine when they needed them most because he didn't want to offend Vladimir.  Remember his accidental hot mike chat with Medvedev?  Hypocrites the LOT of you.  Suck it up, buttercup.  At this rate you may have another 5 years to suffer these slings and arrows.

And back with Obama was president, if any republican called Russia our enemy they were branded a war monger who lives in the past of the cold war.

Now everyone is called a Russian agent lol. 

"When you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said 'Russia.' Not Al-Qaeda; you said Russia," Obama charged. "And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."

- Obama 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
8 hours ago, and then said:

I'm not "suggesting" anything.  I'm stating that the president of the U.S. is the chief executive AND the Commander-in-Chief of the military and can take such actions at will.  The fact that his staff recommended a different course could simply mean they have their own agendas and biases.  Remember, a couple of times already they've been ready to send in the aircraft and bomb when he decided not to.  This is not some overarching policy decision that is going to set an enduring precedent.  This is Trump commiserating with military members who he feels did not get justice.

But, by all means, let's assume the worst.  After all, it IS Trump.  :rolleyes:

So what if Trump is president. These are men that have been convicted heinous crimes. The military itself has deemed these men a risk. Another prime example of Trump doing cause he can. You're referring to the drone being shot down by Iran. Well lets look at that. Iran got away with it and now looks set to stretch its influence from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon because all because Trump has decided to disengage from the Middle East. Leaving Russia as the dominate power broker in the region. Next time Iranian backed Islamists use their proxies to attack Israel you can thank Trump for that. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
11 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

I'd like to know what his endgame is for this. Is this a spur of the moment trump disaster or was he trying to accomplish something. If so, what? Most officers understand the reason for military justice and accept it? But how many rank and file feel the same way? Was he trying to curry favor with this stunt? So many questions. 

I don't think Trump has an endgame, Hank. This is Trump judging others using his very own morals as a compass. He must think that the U.S. military has its hands tied and taking the restraints off makes an even fight. This is the populous rhetoric that got him into office and the very same that he hopes will help him survive the impeachment inquiry and 2020. 

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Wouldn't be prudent indeed.  You have to blame me for this one.  Not a desire, just a speculation.

I have some difficulty in grasping how anyone on the Left could imagine a positive outcome if he were basically lynched politically.  There would be repercussions and they wouldn't be mild or transient, I'm afraid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

These are men that have been convicted heinous crimes.

What crimes, precisely?  They killed combatants under less than perfectly defined situations.  One guy was a bomb maker.  Cry about big bad Trump all you want but don't try to act like these men were homicidal maniacs.  In case you hadn't been briefed, the main mission of the military is to break things and KILL people.  To my knowledge there has only been one true war crime by an American soldier and he was sentenced to life in prison.  He slaughtered a family in Afghanistan a few years back.  I'd have been okay with hanging or shooting him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
2 minutes ago, and then said:

I have some difficulty in grasping how anyone on the Left could imagine a positive outcome if he were basically lynched politically.  There would be repercussions and they wouldn't be mild or transient, I'm afraid.

If I were a leftist I'd definitely be worried about the fallout that Pence may bring to the arena. But my guess is Schitt will try to prolong the impeachment process until it's too late for any Republican to launch a successful campaign.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, and then said:

What crimes, precisely?  They killed combatants under less than perfectly defined situations.  One guy was a bomb maker.  Cry about big bad Trump all you want but don't try to act like these men were homicidal maniacs.  In case you hadn't been briefed, the main mission of the military is to break things and KILL people.  To my knowledge there has only been one true war crime by an American soldier and he was sentenced to life in prison.  He slaughtered a family in Afghanistan a few years back.  I'd have been okay with hanging or shooting him.

You should direct you're retort to the U.S. military, who are of the opinion that these men are not fit to serve. What makes you think Trump did the right thing ?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd

snip

Edited by Gwynbleidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
20 minutes ago, and then said:

What crimes, precisely?  They killed combatants under less than perfectly defined situations.  One guy was a bomb maker.  Cry about big bad Trump all you want but don't try to act like these men were homicidal maniacs.  In case you hadn't been briefed, the main mission of the military is to break things and KILL people.  To my knowledge there has only been one true war crime by an American soldier and he was sentenced to life in prison.  He slaughtered a family in Afghanistan a few years back.  I'd have been okay with hanging or shooting him.

The one I was talking about (as I only read about one of these fellows a while back) was an absolute pig.  He was obviously over the edge and out of control.  His crime in this particular instance was coming up to a boy who I believe was 12 years old and a captive.  He was being treated by a medic.  The Navy Seal took out his hunting knife and stabbed the boy repeatedly until he was dead.  He then got one of his mates to come on over and they posed and took a selfie with the dead child.  

There were a bunch of other crimes he did, like killing an old man who was unarmed in a white robe.  He also shot and killed a young girl.  

As I mentioned earlier, I only read about the Navy Seal Gallagher himself.  I felt he should've been put up against a wall and let a firing squad go at him.  I did not read about the other two fellows who were also involved.   But this Gallagher threatened those around him not to speak out about his heinous behaviour and basically bullied them to stay quiet.  

I must admit, I was extremely upset when I first heard about this and when I read back then that Trump might get involved...I thought to myself, why should he get involved?  These fellows, especially Gallagher in particular, showed no remorse for his behaviour and a simple demotion is nowhere near enough punishment for what he did.  I just feel in this instance Trump should've let the Military carry out it's justice served fit for these people.  They do not deserve any special treatment in my opinion anyway.  

On another note, I know this is purely hypothetical, but should Hilary have won the last election, and the cases of these fellows in question would've gone ahead as usual, what do others think Hilary would've done to these men who committed these crimes?  I'm very curious to see what others think she would've done as President and if she'd have handled this differently.  

 

Edited by Gwynbleidd
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
8 minutes ago, Gwynbleidd said:

I know this is purely hypothetical, but should Hilary have won the last election, and the cases of these fellows in question would've gone ahead as usual, what do you think Hilary would've done to these men who committed these crimes?  I'm very curious to see what you think she would've done as President and if she'd have handled this differently.  

Presidents don't get involved in UCMJ proceedings...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Intriguing.... 

16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump ignores Pentagon advice and intervenes in military war crimes cases

 

16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump is hell bent on destroying every great American institution.  

Soooo... Trump goes against the "Military-Industrial" complex. And for this, we criticism him ? The Left-Wing are actually CRITICISING somebody who stands up against the Pentagon ? 

Yeez... I'm not an American, but I worry about the direction of some elements of the Trump opposition. 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
13 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

I've been surfing some military sites and it seems the men's consensus is that the pardoned prisoner's careers are over regardless of what trump says. I grabbed these to best illustrate. The first is an official response to trumps pardons. The second is from a respected military officer. Oops. Got it topsy turvy. Oh well.

And so a chief is ~always~ "Chief".  Maybe, once in a while, a junior enlisted might get away with "boss" (if the chief is in a good mood).  But the one thing you never do...  and that never is in great big glowing letters, is just call them an E-7.

It's an indication that they've not earned it.  That they're not worthy.

And that tweet is the Navy basically saying, "You can restore his rank.  You will never restore his respect."

And that went out where the entire Navy can see it.

There is no duty station that he'll go to that they won't know "he's not considered a real chief".

The best this Bravo Foxtrot can do now is put in for retirement and go on the ultra-RW speaking circuit.

Because his Naval career is over.  They'll assign him to Adak or Naval Air Station Lemoore or some other shiathole, and not give him anything important again.


It's...  Ensigns aren't going to respect him.

It's that bad

fark_IK1NTTY5lu3gKjisZp6CkhJ-f_k.png

Thanks for this Hank - it makes me feel somewhat better to see what the general consensus of what the Naval community has to say.   I can see from this they're not happy about it and Gallagher in particular will just be an E-7 but he'll be forever disrespected.  He won't carry any rank for requires respect or power that he once had.  It's a weak punishment and whilst I believe this man deserves a firing squad, I'm going to hazard a guess that Trump thought that the disrespect of the entire Navy and this fellows peers is probably going to be worse for Gallagher long term. 

I am very disappointed Trump interfered.  IMO he should've stayed well and truly out of this and had faith in his Military justice system to carry down the appropriate sentencing. 

Does anyone know why Trump got involved originally - did the soldiers lawyers ask Trump for help or something to have him intervene like this?  I do not recall reading anything but I could've missed it entirely as I have not followed this story exclusively. 

Edited by Gwynbleidd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
Just now, Gwynbleidd said:

Thanks for this Hank - it makes me feel somewhat better to see what the general consensus of what the Naval community has to say.   I can see from this they're not happy about it and Gallagher in particular will just be an E-7 but he'll be forever disrespected.  He won't carry any respect or power that he once had.  It's a weak punishment and whilst I believe this man deserves a firing squad, I'm going to hazard a guess that Trump thought that the disrespect of the entire Navy and this fellows peers is probably going to be worse for Gallagher long term. 

I am disappointed Trump interfered.  IMO he should've stayed well and truly out of this and had faith in his Military justice system to carry down the appropriate sentencing. 

Does anyone know why Trump got involved originally - did the soldiers lawyers ask Trump for help or something to have him intervene like this?  I do not recall reading anything but I could've missed it entirely as I have not followed this story exclusively. 

No one seem to know why. Could have been a decision by trump alone or one whispered in his ear by one of his toadies. Either way, no good will come of this. It's very disappointing that there are a few here at UM that feel that no matter what Gallagher and the other prisoner did, they should be released with rank reinstated. Sad.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
17 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

It's very disappointing that there are a few here at UM that feel that no matter what Gallagher and the other prisoner did, they should be released with rank reinstated. Sad.

I doubt that's what they actually think - had Obama done it (which would have been is right as CIC) they would have been up in arms, had Hilary won and done it they would be up in arms - But Trump, to them can do no wrong. Which is very worrying when its as plain as day he is well out of his depth - as his twit the other day against the ambassador, as the ambassador was giving evidence proves.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.