We shouldn't have bombed Nazi Germany. "Illegal order"

Hillary's general says carpet bombing is unconstitutional.

Other urls found in this thread:

ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>"Who do you think is going to carpet-bombed? It's going to be innocent families."

>Were Trump to order such things, Allen said, he would be ordering illegal actions.

First time I've heard a general say the Allies beating the Nazis was illegal and unconstitutional.

It's true though, bombing civilians is never good.

Fight the Army not the civilians.

>the nazis
Fuck off kike.

You think bombing Nazi Germany was an unconstitutional illegal order?

>civs support the war effort
>hurr they dindu nuffin

If you're going to wage a war, do it right.
If they support your enemy, they ARE your enemy.

Every cook, factory worker, farmer, etc you kill is one more that can't make food for your enemy, or one more that can't produce weapons, ammunition, and vehicles for them, or one more that can't produce the supplies to sustain the war effort.

The purpose of war isn't to be a friendly strategy game between commanders based on units and movement.
It's to achieve a goal. If you can only achieve it through bloodshed, do so quickly and without mercy.

>Allen said Trump's comments about the military are a "direct insult" to men and women currently serving in the armed forces.

I guess he didn't consider how calling all the servicemen during WWII war criminals would go over.

Fucking traitor, supporting a cunt who doomed American fighting men and tried to cover it up.

Also

>no CAR

What a faggot turn coat, he doesn't rate to be called sir anymore

I hope his ass knows most Marines have disowned his ass, just another former government worker

>Allen has also faced criticism from within the military community for endorsing any political candidate. Retired Gen. Martin Dempsey, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, wrote a letter to the Washington Post criticizing Allen for breaking the military's tradition of remaining apolitical.

What is total war? That is just the way the entire world conducted warfare back then and it was perfectly legal.

Also this.

When Gen. Mattis was approached with a possible presidential run, the Warrior Monk refused.

He knows better than to sully himself with politics, a true war fighter and Marine through and through

But didn't Trump get endorsed by a general too?

He pretty much has almost all of the military's support, particularly the guys who actually do all the fighting

...

>breaking the military's tradition of remaining apolitical

That's Hillary magic.

Classified e-mail illegally on private serve? No problem!

Pretend you're for progress when you literally went in from of a group of dykes to tell them they're not good enough for your marriage — the one you and Monica enjoy. SURE

too bad their votes won't be counted by the magic voting machines

like the ones that had her win six straight coin tosses and have Sanders votes go backward in Iowa

No such thing as integrity when big money is involved.

Hillary is going to be bigger than Obama for the right rich people

the bailouts and ballooning debt will get a whole new coat of wax

will they apologize for sherman burning georgia too?

I don't think they know history at all.

Nor does anyone bother to call them on their BS.

All the media ever does is parrot what they say in a manner that's 70% anti-Trump and 30% sort of anti-Trump (for balance)

How about that time the West Virginia National Guard launched an airstrike on a bunch of pissed-off coal miners?

Yes it was 1921 and they were flying piston-engined wooden biplanes, but still...

wrong? yes, I think so
evil? probably, yeah, in my opinion, though I see the argument otherwise
illegal? probably, under Hague
Unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution?

>Unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution?

The other point is that it's not like presidents feel particularly bound by the Constitution.

Where were all these conscientious generals when Woodrow Wilson jailed newspaper owners if they published a story critical of the administration's decision to enter WWI (to get profits for the Du Ponts and such)?

Where were they for his public informants' campaign, complete with posters telling people to rat on their neighbors for a buck?

Where were they when FDR rounded up Americans of various ethnicities and tossed them into camps?

Constitution-Smonstitucian... It's given lip-service but not even the Supreme Court gives a shit about it. Bush v. Gore, anyone? Rehnquist literally told people to ignore the case when thinking about the court's behavior. Sure, buddy!

It's all ideology and political machinations with the Constitution as window dressing.

Even this guy didn't do anything but complain after the fact:

War Is A Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler

ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

>WAR is a racket. It always has been.

>It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

>A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

>Constitution-Smonstitucian... It's given lip-service but not even the Supreme Court gives a shit about it. Bush v. Gore, anyone? Rehnquist literally told people to ignore the case when thinking about the court's behavior. Sure, buddy!
>It's all ideology and political machinations with the Constitution as window dressing.

This is the reality.

What you won't hear on TV or see in a "mainstream" media article — ever.

They are purveyors of fantasy.

money talks

humanity walks

Name the article you ponce.

The Constitution only discusses the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, and the Federal Government and the citizens that keep it in check. It does not discuss legalities of war anymore than it discusses who decides when and where to engage in it.

Fuck Democrats referencing the Constitution while not being even remotely specific as to which Article.