View Poll Results: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • The President-Civilian Control

    26 52.00%
  • The Joint Chiefs-The Military Professionals

    0 0%
  • The President, but the military should decide battlefield tactics.

    24 48.00%
Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 191

Thread: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Dream on. Anyone that's ever served in the military knows that there are ways to go off on superiors and ways not to. You just have to use the proper military courtesy when repremanding a superior officer.
    Your words were Busted off on a Brigadier General

  2. #112
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So attacking my service is the only answer you have left. Why not just admit you where wrong?
    Obviously, you don't understand how the chain of command works. So, why not call you the liar that you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #113
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Your words were Busted off on a Brigadier General
    "Bust off", "reprimand", same difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #114
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Obviously, you don't understand how the chain of command works. So, why not call you the liar that you are.
    So, any evidence at all to support your point of view? You got anything at all?

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    "Bust off", "reprimand", same difference.
    No it isn't shall we now start defining what actual terms mean also.

    And theer is no way on hell you "Reprimand" a 1 Star General I'm still waiting for you to tell me who He/She was and when this happen.

  6. #116
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I would love for other veterans to respond.
    OK you are flat out wrong. You are now moving the goal posts to make it seem the President would give an unlawful command. Of course under President Bush many unlawful commands were given and followed. So your premis is utter bull****.

    Fact is any lawful order given by the President must be obeyed, period.

    For you to try and switch this now to some unlawful garbage is just that. Stop using fallacy argument and arguing semantics. It is intellectually dishonest at best and a lie at worst.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Speaking of lawful orders, I highly recommend watching the old Fred Friendly PBS series Ethics In America.

    http://www.learner.org/resources/ser...p=yes&pid=196#


    Under Orders, Under Fire (Part I)
    How do we wage war when the enemy dresses as civilians and children throw bombs? Generals William Westmoreland, David Jones, and Brent Scowcroft, correspondents Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace, and others question the duty to follow orders and a commander's obligation to protect soldiers.

    Under Orders, Under Fire (Part II)
    The carnage of My Lai raises the issue of confidentiality between the soldier, his religious confessor, and military justice. Generals debate the clash between military tribunals and the right of confidentiality with Chaplain Timothy Tatum of the U.S. Army War College, the Reverend J. Bryan Hehir of the U.S. Catholic Conference, and others.

    Each show is about an hour & you'll be hooked as soon as you start watching! (you'll have to disable pop-up killers to watch)
    Last edited by Devil505; 09-30-09 at 06:53 AM.

  8. #118
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    OK you are flat out wrong. You are now moving the goal posts to make it seem the President would give an unlawful command. Of course under President Bush many unlawful commands were given and followed. So your premis is utter bull****.
    I think you're missing the point that Redress et. al. are making. They're saying that the president can issue order directly to a particular ground unit. Doing so would be a break of the chain of command.

    I brought up the lawful and legal orders point, because Redress that there are no exceptions and that the president has the final say on small unit tactics. If the president is present at your piece and gives some crazy instructions to you on how to load the gun, you're not obligated to follow those instructions, if they either unsafe, violate regulations or doctrine.

    Obviously, there circumstances when the chain of command can and will be broken, such as on the spot corrections for various reasons, or some sort of emergency. D-Day is a good exmaple of how the official chain of command was broken and due to throwing together ad-hoc units, because if the situtation at hand, a new un-official chain of command had to created where you might have a bird colonel leading a platoon size element and his platoon seargent is a corporal.

    Ultimately, the notion of the president giving direct orders to a combat platoon, or a company is so far fetched that it's not even worth arguing about. Besides that, anyone smart enough to make it to the White House is mart enough to know that if he's every in the situation where he has to tramp through the bush with an infantry platoon that his best course of action is to keep his mouth shut and his ears open.

    Proper proticol is for the president to express his intent to his chain of command and the chain of command carry out that mission, in accordance with that intent. Basically, the president tells the chain what outcome he wants and it's up to the chain to figure out how to achieve that outcome. It's silly to think that the president is going to be creating tactical doctrine right down to the company/platoon/squad level.

    Can the president give the president issues orders to a small unit on the battlefield, is it leagal? Constitutionally speaking, sure. Would, or should he tell individual units what tactics to use in a firefight? Certainly not. Could he realistically get away with making such decisions? There's no way that the chain of command would stand for it. It's the reason that it's never happened before.

    When the chain is broken, it will do nothing but muck up the whole system and cause a serious breakdown. My point is, if the president actually had the final say about tactics used by combat units, there are alotta elements of our military that wouldn't exist, the Training and Doctrination Command (TRADOC) would be one of them. There would be no use for corps, division, brigade and battalion commanders if it was at all proper for the president to issue orders directly to line units.

    So, at the end of the day, in reality, the president doesn't have the last say on what combat tactics are to be used on the battlefield.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If the president is present at your piece and gives some crazy instructions to you on how to load the gun, you're not obligated to follow those instructions, if they either unsafe, violate regulations or doctrine.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post

    So, at the end of the day, in reality, the president doesn't have the last say on what combat tactics are to be used on the battlefield.
    Absolutely incorrect & , at this point

    Everyone else gets it but you.
    Last edited by Devil505; 09-30-09 at 11:08 AM.

  10. #120
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Absolutely incorrect & , at this point

    Everyone else gets it but you.
    Nope, the president doesn't have the authority to circumvent the chain of command, nor does he have the authority to issue ilegal orders.

    Hint: Illegal orders aren't just those that violate internatonal law. Issueing an order to perform a task in an unsafe manner is an illegal order, as well.

    Believe it, or not, when a superior officer is wrong, then he's wrong and no longer has the authority to issue that particular order. He doesn't have the authority to violate the law, military regulations, to needlessly threaten troop safety and welfare. If a superior violates the law, or the regulations, it's the duty of those around him, regardless of rank, to correct him. And the same goes for the president.

    Remember that shot of PBO boarding Marine One for the first time and he interrupted that Marine's salute to shake his hand? It was a serious violation of military courtesy. Ya don't see that happening anymore, do you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •