Trump Warns U.S. Military ‘May Very Well’ Go into Nigeria ‘Guns-a-Blazing’ over Killing of Christians

The purpose of America's military industrial congressional complex is wealth extraction.....not protecting you.

As Eisenhower warned you.

You might have listened.

But U did what U did.

Bend Over!
 
Hawkeye10 said:
No.....our conventual military rather sucks...all we have is terrorism and nuclear war....were we all die....or wish that we had.
Click to expand...
You are flatly wrong. From George III to Russia in 1979 to GWB and the forever war, some wars cannot be won with the effort that cannot be justified. Iran will disappear if and when it uses nukes.
 
Earl said:
Perhaps once, then they can kiss their jobs goodbye.

Disobey a superior officer: defenses to UCMJ Article 90 and ...

Nov 20, 2024 · UCMJ Article 90 and UCMJ Article 92 applies when a service member acts to disobey a superior officer or intentionally fails to obey a lawful command given by a superior.

Any service member charged with violating UCMJ Article 90 could face the maximum penalties allowable under this Article, including confinement for up to ten years, Dishonorable Discharge from military service, and total forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

I never saw an Article 90 or 92 during 8 years of service.
Click to expand...
I saw one. The court-martial convening authority backed off the first and then ignored the second. It was a messy case and eventually ended in a discharge.
 
volsrocks said:
www.breitbart.com

Trump Warns U.S. Military 'May Very Well' Go into Nigeria 'Guns-a-Blazing'

President Donald Trump warned that if Nigeria continues to allow Christians to be slaughtered, the U.S. will go in "guns-a-Blazing."
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

Islamist .. estimated to have slaughtered between 50,000 to 350,000 Christians.

The government has done little or nothing to stop them.
Click to expand...

He wants a war so bad he can taste it. Guess being passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize has gotten him to think "Fuck it, might as well use all these bombs and guns and aircraft and ships and people for some fun and score points with my poorly-educated MAGATs."

And you Reichtards worship this garbage.
 
Jake Starkey said:
Not lawful orders. It is incumbent for the command's JAG advisers to inform them which are or are not lawful, not the CiC.
Click to expand...
Wrong! Unless an order is clearly, unequivocally, utterly and completely, illegal someone in the military given one better damn well follow and carry it out. It doesn't require the advice or consent of a lawyer either. That's not how the military works. So, if Trump tells the military to blow drug boats out of the water in international waters on reasonable suspicion, the military doesn't question that order, they carry it out as an example. If an officer refused such an order, even if they had the advice of a military lawyer, the next thing in their future is being fucking fired. That's quicker than a court martial and perfectly legal. Officers serve at the pleasure of the President and Congress in that order. They can be fired for anything at anytime.

You have clearly never served in the military and know nothing about the military chain of command and UCMJ.
 
Trump ignores international laws and attacks countries when he feels like it. He is doing it in Venezuela. Now perhaps adding Nigeria. he is the only president who likes Nukes and talks about them regularly. He is a dangerous person.
 

I know better, having worked with JAG and courts-martial convening authorities and commanders.

What is interesting when the JAG wants a commander to do one thing and the commander does not want to do it. I saw several of those situations.

I refused twice, orders from a JAG and a commander each, and nothing happened.

T. A. has never served. That is obvious.
 
Jake Starkey said:
I know better, having worked with JAG and courts-martial convening authorities and commanders.

What is interesting when the JAG wants a commander to do one thing and the commander does not want to do it. I saw several of those situations.

I refused twice, orders from a JAG and a commander each, and nothing happened.

T. A. has never served. That is obvious.
Click to expand...
JAG officers are not in the chain of command. They are staff officers so you couldn't be receiving orders from one unless you were a JAG officer yourself.

I also don't buy for a second that you refused orders from a superior officer twice and got nothing for it. Hell, I don't even buy that you were ever in the military.
 
archives said:
Another deflection

Boka Haram has been killing Christians for over a decade, and it never even got a whisper of concern from Trump thru his first term and nine months of his second, and now he suddenly wants to invade Nigeria. As stated, just another Trump diversion off his screw ups
Click to expand...

AMERICA FIRST!

America will not be intervening in these foreign conflicts anymore . America will not be giving these groups or regions to come at us. Which is why Trumps America wants control of Gaza, as muslims have always supported the US taking control of lands in the region calling America 'The Great Saviour" and in Nigeria the killing of Muslims by Christians and vice versa has been going on decades so keeping America 'out' means 'boots on the ground'.

All the while magats clap like seals.

Add to that blowing up fishing vessels in the Caribbean and it is hard to understand why Trump has not got a Nobel Peace Prize yet???
 
T. A. Gardner said:
JAG officers are not in the chain of command. They are staff officers so you couldn't be receiving orders from one unless you were a JAG officer yourself.

I also don't buy for a second that you refused orders from a superior officer twice and got nothing for it. Hell, I don't even buy that you were ever in the military.
Click to expand...
Jag's inform those in service what is legal or not, what is Constitutional or not.

What that means when a Jag tells them something is illegal or not Constitutional is that you cannot do it. Whether you consider that an order or not is just semantic.
 
QP! said:
Jag's inform those in service what is legal or not, what is Constitutional or not.
Click to expand...

Advise. They don't make command decisions. They are staff, not command officers.
QP! said:
What that means when a Jag tells them something is illegal or not Constitutional is that you cannot do it. Whether you consider that an order or not is just semantic.
Click to expand...
No, that is what the JAG officer is recommending. It isn't set in stone. It is the commanding officer getting advice from his legal officer. JAG's do not have command authority and cannot override a commanding officer's decisions.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
JAG
Click to expand...
T. A., you never served in the military.

JAG's do not have command authority (though the recent changes in terms of who approves sexual-informed cases has blurred that a bit). But they do advise, and the farther up the chain the more influence they have. A JAG officer to a Battalion Commander is far less 'oomphy' than say a JAG for a Division or a Corps.

My JAG at a Division made life for a junior JAG assigned to advise a battalion commander absolutely miserable for not getting the commander do handle a case a certain way.

Your writing, T. A., informs me you have no idea of the insider workings of a JAG Office. And, yes, I do doubt that you served.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Advise. They don't make command decisions. They are staff, not command officers.

<snip>
Click to expand...
Let's get you straight.
Here’s how the system works now:

⚖️ Key Changes in Military Justice​

  • Commanders No Longer Decide Prosecutions: A major reform removed commanders from the decision-making process for prosecuting serious crimes, including sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. This change was mandated by the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act and took effect on December 28, 2023.
  • Role of Special Trial Counsel (STC): Each military branch now has independent prosecution offices staffed by trained attorneys. These offices decide whether to press charges or send cases to trial—not the chain of command.
  • JAG Officers’ Role: JAGs (Judge Advocate General officers) continue to provide legal advice to commanders and service members, but they do not have command authority over prosecution decisions. They may advise on legality, procedure, and rights, but they cannot initiate or block prosecutions.

🧠 Why This Matters​

  • The reform aims to ensure fairness and impartiality, especially in politically sensitive cases like sexual assault.
  • Victims are now assured that their case will be evaluated by legal professionals, not influenced by unit politics or career concerns.
 
Jake Starkey said:
T. A., you never served in the military.

JAG's do not have command authority (though the recent changes in terms of who approves sexual-informed cases has blurred that a bit). But they do advise, and the farther up the chain the more influence they have. A JAG officer to a Battalion Commander is far less 'oomphy' than say a JAG for a Division or a Corps.

My JAG at a Division made life for a junior JAG assigned to advise a battalion commander absolutely miserable for not getting the commander do handle a case a certain way.

Your writing, T. A., informs me you have no idea of the insider workings of a JAG Office. And, yes, I do doubt that you served.
Click to expand...
You are describing office politics, not actual responsibilities there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top