ADVERTISEMENT

Is this treason?

True, but Iran and Afghanistan are not China. I don't know what the protocol is for peace-time communications at the military command level, but presumably if they exist it is to avoid uncertainty that could lead to irreversible mistakes.

That doesn't mean a US military commander has to warn China when we are responding militarily to a hostile action. That would be treason.

But assuring them there are measures in place to prevent an unprovoked attack seems to fit within those communications. Committing to warn them of an unprovoked attack seems to be a gray area in terms of military protocol.

But it's probably squarely within one's role as a member of the human race.
Do you worry that the Chinese might have been made MORE concerned? That their fear was unnecessarily raised? Or maybe even just caused them to view a meaningless satellite re-positioning as a threat? Because after all, a PENTAGON GENERAL was trying to convince them “all is well.” Can confusion cause unintended Chi-Com action?

Unhinged beliefs have consequences too.

Are your beliefs hinged or unhinged?

ANY possibility you might be wrong?




ef0cb52cff528b792fcdbd74a64d45656fbcc8fe.gif
 
Assuming what I read is true, it's not inappropriate for the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff to talk to his counterparts in other countries. It's not inappropriate to initiate such calls or to receive such calls. That's long been done. It's not inappropriate to tell that counterpart that there is no plan to attack that country. I don't think it's inappropriate to say something like it's not a policy of the USA to conduct surprise, unprovoked attacks on other countries. However, I think it is inappropriate to say we'd warn them if an attack were to come. I also don't think a counterpart would truly believe a statement like that.
So, is it inappropriate to tell them he would warn them, even if there is zero evidence that the scenario would ever arise, or the warner would actually follow through with a warning at all?
 
Reading about it, it is SOP that those calls are staffed by DoD and intel, and they sign off on the gist of it before the call. Assuming all that was done, there isn't a problem. He reports to SecDef and with DoD involvement it pretty much means he had authority. If DoD had an issue with what he said and they were on the call, I'm not sure why he wasn't fired then and there. It isn't like Trump is known to wait.

But if this call didn't follow the procedure then there is an issue.
re the call here's a really dumb question. what do they use to make a call? gov landline? are they recorded/transcribed?

cell phone companies don't keep the content of calls/texts. you can subpoena records and it'll give you phone numbers/texts dates/times but no content
 
re the call here's a really dumb question. what do they use to make a call? gov landline? are they recorded/transcribed?

cell phone companies don't keep the content of calls/texts. you can subpoena records and it'll give you phone numbers/texts dates/times but no content
As I understand it, the calls are monitored, just like Trump's calls to Ukraine were monitored. The calls are written up, and a summary is available to those with clearance. I am certain they are on government secure lines. I cannot imagine we would leave any call like that vulnerable.
 
re the call here's a really dumb question. what do they use to make a call? gov landline? are they recorded/transcribed?

cell phone companies don't keep the content of calls/texts. you can subpoena records and it'll give you phone numbers/texts dates/times but no content
I assume the Chi-Coms gave him the secret iPhone code to activate the secret iPhone software.

🕵️
 
As I understand it, the calls are monitored, just like Trump's calls to Ukraine were monitored. The calls are written up, and a summary is available to those with clearance. I am certain they are on government secure lines. I cannot imagine we would leave any call like that vulnerable.
Unless he’s of the Hillary Clinton school of cyber security…
 
As I understand it, the calls are monitored, just like Trump's calls to Ukraine were monitored. The calls are written up, and a summary is available to those with clearance. I am certain they are on government secure lines. I cannot imagine we would leave any call like that vulnerable.
So a witness w/ a legal pad not a recorder?
 
Do you worry that the Chinese might have been made MORE concerned? That their fear was unnecessarily raised? Or maybe even just caused them to view a meaningless satellite re-positioning as a threat? Because after all, a PENTAGON GENERAL was trying to convince them “all is well.” Can confusion cause unintended Chi-Com action?

Unhinged beliefs have consequences too.

Are your beliefs hinged or unhinged?

ANY possibility you might be wrong?




ef0cb52cff528b792fcdbd74a64d45656fbcc8fe.gif
I'm not too confident of anything about the whole scenario. The Chinese could have just been playing Milley to see how much he would disclose about Trump's state of mind. And any scenario where the Chair of the Joint Chiefs suggests a gap with the President is not good and potentially dangerous.

But unlike almost everyone else jumping in with various opinions, Milley was in the room every day with Trump. Either his judgement was exceedingly flawed leading him to foolish and risky conclusions, or it wasn't.

Either way, I do think Milley is now a liability and ought to leave once this dies down.
 
So, is it inappropriate to tell them he would warn them, even if there is zero evidence that the scenario would ever arise, or the warner would actually follow through with a warning at all?
Of course it would be more inappropriate to actually warn any country we're about to attack them IF we're going to attack them. Of course in Iraq both times we basically told them we were coming and when, but they couldn't do anything to stop them. I'm not one that thinks this is as big a deal as others think it is. The screwed up withdrawal from Afghanistan is an actual big deal though.
 
Of course it would be more inappropriate to actually warn any country we're about to attack them IF we're going to attack them. Of course in Iraq both times we basically told them we were coming and when, but they couldn't do anything to stop them. I'm not one that thinks this is as big a deal as others think it is. The screwed up withdrawal from Afghanistan is an actual big deal though.
Thank you. I listen to you for all things military, instead of the resident militia members.
 
You and Milley were both clinically insane after being brainwashed by stupid people who run TV news organizations. Sound bites control you. You can’t think rationally. Hell, you believed DNA-deep that the Russians had video of whores urinating on Trump. Try and understand what that says about you.

Trump is a jerk who refuses to play “politics” - I voted against him 4 times - but he was not so bad that our military can be excused for ignoring the Constitutional mandate of civilian military control and unilaterally communicating with an enemy like this.

Milley had other options. Like the Constitution. He went rogue. He is a military threat to the citizens of the United States. Arguing about whether he committed “treason” is a distraction.
Hmm, I lost track of all the generals who worked directly for Trump who said he was mentally unstable. Let’s see, there were Generals Milley, Mattis, MacMaster, John Kelly. and of course Lt. Colonel Vindeman. Then you have Head of Special Operations and Navy SEAL Admiral William H. McRaven, General Stanley McChrystal, among many others.

I’m sure all these guys we just getting TV sound bites and have no idea of what was directly going on.

Did you ever consider it’s the other way around and that YOU’RE the one getting stupid sound bites?
 
Last edited:
Assuming what I read is true, it's not inappropriate for the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff to talk to his counterparts in other countries. It's not inappropriate to initiate such calls or to receive such calls. That's long been done. It's not inappropriate to tell that counterpart that there is no plan to attack that country. I don't think it's inappropriate to say something like it's not a policy of the USA to conduct surprise, unprovoked attacks on other countries. However, I think it is inappropriate to say we'd warn them if an attack were to come. I also don't think a counterpart would truly believe a statement like that.
How about telling the lead of the opposition party they agree with her that the President is crazy?

Is that appropriate for the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
 
You'd rather he lie?
I'd rather he not consult with the leader of the opposition party when he's supposed to be advising the President.

And if he truly thought Trump was crazy, he should have notified the Cabinet and justified his concerns. Or resigned and told the President directly why.

But he took the cowardly way out and tried to go behind the President's back.

The man is 100% political and was angling for a continued position on the JCOS, which, of course, he got.
 
I'd rather he not consult with the leader of the opposition party when he's supposed to be advising the President.

IIUC, it was Pelosi who contacted him to express her concerns. It's not like you can refuse a call from the Speaker of the House.
 
And if he truly thought Trump was crazy, he should have notified the Cabinet and justified his concerns. Or resigned and told the President directly why.
To be replaced by a Trump lapdog? That was Trump's MO.
The man is 100% political and was angling for a continued position on the JCOS, which, of course, he got.
Or perhaps he recognized he had a higher duty to the country to do his best to prevent any catastrophic moves by someone who had shown he wasn't fit for the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bowlmania
To be replaced by a Trump lapdog? That was Trump's MO.

Or perhaps he recognized he had a higher duty to the country to do his best to prevent any catastrophic moves by someone who had shown he wasn't fit for the job.
A higher duty to disobey the Constitution that he's sworn to uphold?

It's amazing what you can justify.
 
I'd rather he not consult with the leader of the opposition party when he's supposed to be advising the President.

And if he truly thought Trump was crazy, he should have notified the Cabinet and justified his concerns. Or resigned and told the President directly why.

But he took the cowardly way out and tried to go behind the President's back.

The man is 100% political and was angling for a continued position on the JCOS, which, of course, he got.
The Chiefs typically stay on for their terms across administrations. Usually they’re 3 year terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
The Chiefs typically stay on for their terms across administrations. Usually they’re 3 year terms.
I think you owe it to the country to raise your hand if you truly think the President is crazy.

That's all I'm saying.

The President is Commander-in-Chief. If Milley thought he was crazy, why was he still following his orders?
 
this whole subject has been handled horribly by the administration and the media.

post nuclear weapons and the elimination of hundreds of millions, or billions, at the push of a button and within minutes, no single person should ever have the ability to launch an attack.

making this about Trump, rather than any prez, or anyone period, is where this subject went totally south.

as crazy as Trump having said ability, it's also beyond crazy for Bush or Obama or Biden to have it, and no doubt, surely, someone was making sure a mentally faltering Reagan didn't have his finger on the button.

but then when division is the goal, how the discussion should go is different for those benefiting from the division, than for those being divided.

no way should Trump ever have said power, but no way should any individual have it.
 
I found it inter
this whole subject has been handled horribly by the administration and the media.

post nuclear weapons and the elimination of hundreds of millions, or billions, at the push of a button and within minutes, no single person should ever have the ability to launch an attack.

making this about Trump, rather than any prez, or anyone period, is where this subject went totally south.

as crazy as Trump having said ability, it's also beyond crazy for Bush or Obama or Biden to have it, and no doubt, surely, someone was making sure a mentally faltering Reagan didn't have his finger on the button.

but then when division is the goal, how the discussion should go is different for those benefiting from the division, than for those being divided.

no way should Trump ever have said power, but no way should any individual have it.
This discussion is reminding me of Christopher Walken and "The Dead Zone".
 
this whole subject has been handled horribly by the administration and the media.

post nuclear weapons and the elimination of hundreds of millions, or billions, at the push of a button and within minutes, no single person should ever have the ability to launch an attack.

making this about Trump, rather than any prez, or anyone period, is where this subject went totally south.

as crazy as Trump having said ability, it's also beyond crazy for Bush or Obama or Biden to have it, and no doubt, surely, someone was making sure a mentally faltering Reagan didn't have his finger on the button.

but then when division is the goal, how the discussion should go is different for those benefiting from the division, than for those being divided.

no way should Trump ever have said power, but no way should any individual have it.
Did you know about this?

 
Did you know about this?

As I caught up in this thread it seems a lot of opinions expressed came prior to the discovery that Milley was likely acting in coordination with Esper and the DOD. I think Goat posted an article here, and I posted the Axios article in the other thread about whether Milley was a tyrant/hero...

Likely won't change the mind of the most rigidly outspoken, but I'm not really interested in their answer to this particular question. But for those of you that basically felt Milley has become a distraction and should resign, is that opinion altered if it turns out he was basically operating in conjunction with his boss (Esper)? After all, the entire issue is being discussed in the context of reporting for an as-yet-unreleased book account, while the Axios account, in particular, was based on sources within the Admin...

Meanwhile, (and apologies if previously posted, I had to read 3 pages to get caught up) here is McCaffrey speaking on the issue today...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
As I caught up in this thread it seems a lot of opinions expressed came prior to the discovery that Milley was likely acting in coordination with Esper and the DOD. I think Goat posted an article here, and I posted the Axios article in the other thread about whether Milley was a tyrant/hero...

Likely won't change the mind of the most rigidly outspoken, but I'm not really interested in their answer to this particular question. But for those of you that basically felt Milley has become a distraction and should resign, is that opinion altered if it turns out he was basically operating in conjunction with his boss (Esper)? After all, the entire issue is being discussed in the context of reporting for an as-yet-unreleased book account, while the Axios account, in particular, was based on sources within the Admin...

Meanwhile, (and apologies if previously posted, I had to read 3 pages to get caught up) here is McCaffrey speaking on the issue today...

*snicker* MSNBC..... lmao!
 
I doubt he's old. He has all the hallmarks of a young man who thinks he knows more than anyone else. Like Farva was back when he was Farva. I bet he's in his early or mid 20s.
I thought Danc mentioned he retired several years ago and has a lot of money.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT