Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
One assumes so, but with things like this you can never really tell. Leadership was chafing a little under Obama and there’s a feeling right now that this hands-off approach is better.
On the plus side, there’s less of a chance they’ll invade Venezuela on Trump’s say so.
They should have sent a poet.The military should always answer to a civilian government.
But we're a TYRANNICAL civilian government.
So it's a Morton's Fork sort of situation.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
No it's not. A military operating independently of civilian authority is always a bad thing. I'm in total agreement that the Trump administration is poisonous, but imagine having the entire bureaucracy controlled by generals and admirals off the leash — imagine fucking Mad Dog with unfettered access and control over our government.
Bullshit, it's not a Morton's Fork. You want us to be like Egypt?
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Jul 4th 2018 at 11:18:29 AM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
![]()
![]()
A Morton’s Fork is two different choices leading to the same outcome, that’s not really what this is.
It’s also not really a matter of the military being out of control so much as it is a lack of oversight allowing more independent decision making. The problem here is that military decision making is just that, military decision making. The military isn’t a diplomatic body, and it doesn’t really have overarching goals outside of prosecuting strategic objectives. It can’t be left to it’s own devices, it needs civilian leadership.
Diminishing civilian control over the military is possibly one of the most dangerous precedents this administration could set.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2018 at 8:29:41 AM
They should have sent a poet.It's a Morton's Fork because the alternative is going to war with a country that is completely innocent. Tens of thousands of people (if not more likely hundreds of thousands of people) will die for no reason other than a monster's whims. That is why it is a bad thing.
Seriously, What the Hell, Hero??
It is a war crime. Conspiracy to wage aggressive warfare. It is a illegal.
If you honestly believe it is better to attack an innocent nation because the duly elected officials order you to, more power to you. It's a valid respect of the rules of democracy—but I think of it as a nightmare scenario.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 4th 2018 at 8:30:38 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Good thing no one suggested that.
Or what I thought was, "two horrifically bad outcomes that have no good answer, only bad ones." If it wasn't a Morton's Fork then I'd say, "Man, wouldn't it be awesome if the military ignored Trump?"
The options are let hundreds of thousands of innocent people be killed out of the greed and vanity of a bad President stroking his ego or challenge the very foundations of our democracy.
There is no Take a Third Option.
Hence why it's a horrifying situation to contemplate. To say the military should obey Trump, though, is also taking responsibility for the fact we're in a situation where there are no checks and balances for a man who might literally attack a nation suffering mass poverty as well as hunger for shits and giggles. Its The Caligula levels of evil.
Sadly, there's no rules for saying, "We don't go to war unless it's to defend our nation or stop atrocities." I'd love for more armies to just not show up for battle as an Actual Pacifist in RL (I only approve of violence in fiction) but I know that's not happening.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 4th 2018 at 8:51:09 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
First off, that’s a misuse of Morton’s Fork. A Morton’s Fork is a set of choices that lead to the same outcome, essentially the illusion of choice.
Second, like I said, there are ways we can avoid unnecessary conflict without damaging civilian control of the military. We don’t only have those two choices you’re presenting.
You seem to be advocating for the military to directly disobey the president, which is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. It may be a good thing today, but if the military feels emboldened to set its own agenda it definitely won’t be a good thing tomorrow.
Also, there are rules for when we go to war. The US is party to several pieces of international law which prohibit the use of armed force outside of self-defense, HI, or specific approval by the UN Security Council. Over the years we’ve seen some rather liberal interpretations of these laws, but they still stand and it’s inaccurate to say “there's no rules for saying, "We don't go to war unless it's to defend our nation or stop atrocities"” because there is a rule and it specifically says that.
They should have sent a poet.I'm sorry, I am clearly not communicating very well.
In the specific instance of President Trump advocating for an armed invasion of a non-hostile invasion on (as far as I can tell) no pretext or cassus belli at all, it is horrifying to contemplate it being carried out.
However, it is just as bad (if not worse) to imagine the military refusing to obey civilian control even if he's a tyrant. I can't in good conscience say that the military should obey such an order, though, because it is murder and an international war crime.
I find it a depressing situation. I see it as Trump eroding our democracy either way. Either by forcing our military into acts violating major treaties and international commitments to peace or by mass disobedience (which I do not see happening but exist in the hypothetical).
Honestly, I imagine Trump won't do it just because he's a nutcase and a man driven by whims or it not gaining the approval of hopefully at least a few sane Republicans. But its the possibility of another Iraq War (except even less justified) that scares me.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 4th 2018 at 9:02:45 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Happy Independence Day.
Time to release the fireworks, hot dogs and fire loaded guns carelessly into the air!
Inter arma enim silent legesUS Border Patrol questioned the crew of two fishing boats in Canadian waters, where they had zero jurisdiction to do so and probably shouldn't have been there in the first place.
We'll likely see more incidents, as Trump's thugs going on a deeper power trip, especially in areas where the border is technically disputed by a few kilometers.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
A general or soldier is free to disobey such an order, but they have to be prepared to face, and they must face consequences for that. Civil disobedience doesn't free someone from being held accountable for their actions. I think you underestimate just how fundamental the civilian control of the military is to our democracy. Once it's neglected, once it is no longer obeyed or respected, there's no bringing liberal democracy back. Once the precedent is set that military voices can have control over political discourse, you can't just put that precedent back into Pandora's box.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Jul 4th 2018 at 12:06:56 PM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
x6 I wouldn’t really call an invasion of Venuzuela “very possible”. In this case the civilian administration did what it was supposed to do and advised the president against that course of action, based on the article it sounds like the military never even got involved. Even if it had been passed through them the military has an advisory capacity as well, on top of obligations to refuse, or at the very least defuse, directly unlawful orders.
Like I said, you seem to be advocating for direct disobedience from the military. And that’s something that simply cannot happen.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2018 at 9:10:55 AM
They should have sent a poet.Probably not very possible but I can't be alone in thinking Trump has wanted "his" war since getting into office.
I agree. The army disobeying the orders from a civilian president would be a really really bad thing.
Roslin and Adama.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 4th 2018 at 9:10:06 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I would probably argue that refusing to fight an illegal war just on the Pres's say-so is actually not necessarily violating the civilian government. The POTUS is only one part of the government, and he actually doesn't have the right to just declare war on countries.
And remember, illegal and unconstitutional orders are, by their very nature illegal and unconstitutional. The law is, in fact, to disobey such orders.
Leviticus 19:34Perhaps I'm being alarmist but the thing that frightens me most about Trump is he violates the law like he breathes and yet keeps going. He is basically the Kingpin and as TRUMP HIMSELF said, he could strangle a guy in the street and get away with it.
I don't take illegality as a dealbreaker anymore for anything he might want.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
If you disobey an order, period, you can still face censure, dismissal, or imprisonment. The argument that the order was illegal comes afterward when you're appealing. Military orders don't come with time allotments for insubordination. If this sounds like Kabuki theater, that's because it is — a lot of political law is.
That part does kind of make sense to me; as long as you're not ill-treated when held for insubordination, ideally what it comes out to is 'I'm giving you an order, you refused the order, therefore you are not part of the chain of command right now and you're being removed from the area'. Of course being mistreated or abused during that holding is one thing, and it's pretty much obvious that detaining a soldier for refusing to follow an unjust or morally wrong order is also unjust/morally wrong, but the actual mechanism itself makes sense. I think.
It's been fun.

We’re setting new records for the lack of cohesion in our government. The military operating with such independence is also a fairly disturbing state of affairs that the next president is going to have to bring under control.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2018 at 7:45:02 AM
They should have sent a poet.