UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

It doesn't involve capture of territory or even destruction of equipment. These enemies will not surrender because of that. Victory involves killing enough of these non-surrendering enemies that they lose the desire and/or capacity to maintain their attacks on US citizens.

Given that, any thoughts on updating the old war treaties? Even the Nazis and Imperial Japan surrendered when it was obvious they could not win because they lost too much territory or the ability to defend sufficiently. So, the old models applied to conflict against even those evil regimes. But islamists won't surrender no matter how bad things get for them, so they need to be killed if victory is desired. Cartels are similar in this regard.

Offered for discussion. Feel free to criticize.

((And, I suppose feel free to be so emotionally outraged that you forego intelligent discussion...this latter approach seems common, even though it doesn't solve problems.))

(no message)

When you prosecute the Navy personnel involved, will you also prosecute Seal Team Six which engaged in what they themselves described as "a kill operation" within Bin Laden's compound? (Sorry, Chris, if you didn't say, "whatabout school shooters," you don't get to say "whatabout Seal Team Six.") They even prepared to take out the bin Laden compound with enough ordinance to kill every woman and child within, and several nearby homes of likely innocent people to boot. Will you prosecute Obama and everyone in the chain of command for that operation, just like Chris says he would do of Trump and the cartel strikes?

Victories over terrorists and cartels are not measured in land captured. Victories are measured in deaths of the enemy. Obama knew that. The GOP knew that, and didn't attack Obama for acting on that reality. Trump knows that, too. You would prosecute Trump, but not Obama, because you are about political power, not constitutional rights or international law.

The cartels are killing more people in the US than the 9/11 hijackers killed...and they are continuing to do so. The cartels aren't US citizens. They don't have territory. They don't wear uniforms. They won't surrender. They kill American citizens for profit. Why do you seek to extend constitutional and treaty rights to them that they do not have? Why do you defend them? Why not fight them, and defend American citizens instead, like Obama did and Trump is doing?

Honestly, when all this started, I had to consider whether this was a good idea. But, the more I think about it, the more reasonable our attacks seem. The cartels are evil, and past efforts to capture them have failed to stop Americans from being killed by them. Hard to argue against trying something else...something more effective. I'm willing to discuss it, and I reserve the right to change my mind. It is just hard to have more sympathy for the cartels than for the American citizens they are killing for profit. You seem to be able to have more sympathy for them than for Americans; I'm just having a hard time with that.

Osama bin Laden was a terrorist. Drug cartels are not. See attached article.

Drug interdiction operations are different than a campaign to kill anyone and everyone aboard a boat that is “suspected” to be hauling drugs.

What should be the vetting process, Ned? Should the intelligence be memorialized? How much Congressional oversight? Since you espouse protecting human life, what are remedies when the intelligence is proven wrong?

Is it your belief that the US military is immune from being held accountable or being prosecuted, so long as the kill operations fall under the umbrella of “fighting drug cartels?”


Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-administration-shouldnt-designate-drug-cartels-foreign-terrorist-organizations

(no message)

the Trump administration to justify the killing they are undertaking. Is that what you stand for?

btw, the major drug threat to Americans is Fentanyl...and that comes from Mexico...not Venezuela. Yet the Trump admin has not lifted a finger to get the CBP's requested High Tech Fentanyl Scanners for all cars and trucks (i.e. the #1 means of trafficking that drug), installed at our Border Checkpoints...as provided for in the 2024 Bipartisan Senate Border Security and Immigration Bill...Why Not?...assuming DJT is serious about the issue.

Given Trump's negligence wrt the Fentanyl Scanners, and his official pardon of Convicted Drug Trafficker, Hernandez, one could argue that DJT is "Aiding and Abetting" the Enemy in the "War on Drugs". Nothing else makes sense in light of his actions, and inactions.

Back to you...

I'm not an expert, but I agree that Mexico seems a bigger threat. Trump should be bombing the cartels in Mexico. But, maybe he is working his way there. For now, boats in international waters are less problematic than directly attacking Mexico, even though Mexico is a failed state effectively controlled by the cartels.

get back to us when you're ready to "Walk the Talk"...

(no message)

This kind of atrocity was inevitable.

He is a national disgrace.

Hegseth can remove the journalists and Judge Advocates from the Pentagon, but admirals and generals (1) know how to protect their careers and (2) have friends who serve on Armed Forces and Intelligence committees.

He should have. But even that does not excuse it.

Plenty of people throughout history have been executed for this. There is no ambiguity. And the Admiral surely knows this.


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz-Wilhelm_Eck

(no message)

(no message)

“Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”

Geez Ned, the one example of a “clearly illegal order” are shipwrecked survivors.

Edit: Typo re “manual”

Since you brought up the law, I will just say that there are many examples of far more deadly engagements not being treated as war crimes, both on land and at sea (even with sailors in the sea after a ship is fired upon until sunk). But, if Chris mentions something first, no one is allowed to bring up counter-examples from history, lest they be accused of "whataboutism." (Apparently, Chris thinks the order in which arguments are made is very important. I assume he teaches this in class, "Remember, you cannot rebut with examples! If you want to make a point, you have to speak first, not second. The person who speaks first always wins, because rebuttals will only be ridiculed as whataboutism.") Also, since I don't really care about convincing you, I'll just let it go for now. Maybe Chris will give me permission to speak in rebuttal, but I think he hates being challenged with facts.

How’s that for precedent?

(no message)

I’m sure it’s just to insert snark because most of the time you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

You add nothing to the board. Zero zilch…

You're right, they usually add nothing to the discussion.

But let me deal with those issues.

Oh wait, I forgot.

You support Trump, which means the rule of law never applies.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

The Trump Administration has tried to justify their “war” campaign by simply labeling the drug runners as FTO’s — foreign terrorist organizations — as their justification to use military assets. Everything I have read says that purported justification is nonsense. But, if Trump and Hegseth want to play “war,” then apply the law of warfare. Hegseth and the Admiral violated the laws of warfare.

But, this really isn’t war. It’s extra judicial killings against suspected drug dealers.


Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/philippines-duterte-involved-least-76-killings-icc-alleges-rcna233124

Law of war posts by you are irrelevant, because this is not war?

But, if the law of war applies, these are basically pirates...without uniforms and unflagged, so things like the Geneva Convention don't apply, and normal treaty protections are not given to them. Extra shots are made on land and sea (specifically to sink ships in the case of the sea), and sailors die while attacks on their vessels continue. Hell, the Brits left over a thousand German sailors in the water to die when they sank the Bismarck...war crime? There are thousands of war examples worse than this. So, the question is, why do you want to give aid and comfort to the enemy by telling them an entire US political party supports them? Obviously, you just want to score points against Trump.

The reason why Marines shave everyday in the field is to remind them that they are humans, not animals. Unit discipline is essential to maintaining professionalism and standards.

The US military doesn’t train its soldiers to plunder villages, rape their women, and torture and kill prisoners.

One reason why the US military has always instilled adherence to the law of warfare is because we want the enemy to treat our soldiers and sailors accordingly. Once the United States advertises that rules of engagement and rules of warfare are dispensable, then we invite every other nation to blow up our private vessels, kill our shipwrecked survivors, and do whatever they please, in their trumped up “national interests.”

So yes Ned, these extrajudicial kill operations are unlawful, dressing up drug interdiction as a war against narco terrorist organizations. If you believe the United States is justified using the military and Navy, then the rules of war apply. You can’t have it both ways.

There’s a difference between drug interdiction operations and intentionally killing everyone aboard suspected drug carrying vessels. And no, this is not a “political” stunt calling out what the Trump Administration is doing.

Again, OK for Air Force and Navy assets to target trailer parks and housing projects on US soil where suspected drug manufacturers and traffickers have set up shop?

I don't disagree with your arguments here, but I just wish you applied the same logic and principles regardless of which party is in power.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)