[pbhjpbhj]

>unchecked government behaviour //

It's not "government behaviour", it's unchecked dictator's behaviour. It's not democratic, and the former service personnel who are doing it know they're contravening the constitution, committing war crimes, and so breaking their vows and promises. And all seemingly to just be a lever for Trump and his cronies to pull on to steal multi-generational wealth from everyone invested in USA markets; to add to the multi-generational wealth they're stealing via contracts and just taking as bribes, clear as day, right under the noses of congress.

USAians who support Trump seemed to tolerate his militia and the former USA army being used against your own citizens, and tolerate war-crimes that are written as the definition of the types of orders that soldiers must refuse to carry out.

I wonder how long it took the provinces of Rome to realise Rome had fallen.

[Tanoc]

One thing I do not understand is the sheer ridiculousness of the participation rate within the military. As you stated, many of these people in positions of command know exactly what they're violating, be it domestic law, international law, standards of decency, or their own morals. Enough of them seem to disagree with the current directions being given that they could refuse orders and draw down, effectively paralyzing the military with a sizable non-compliant command structure. And if they're all removed from their posts the ensuing chaos would ensure the implosion of the current operation and likely cripple the military for decades. There's a very powerful position these people are in, and they know as much. What's even more important from this entire interaction is that they stand to lose more than they would gain from continuing the war, while they would gain nothing but lose very little if they just stopped and refused. The continuation is actively detrimental to the military because it increases fear of petty or capricious reprisal, reduces trust, makes international cooperation during crises less likely, and pushes foreign militaries away from buying U.S. equipment.

So why continue listening to the order to punch the brick wall and break their knuckles? There's some deeper cultural issue at play here, likely that's been there since Vietnam and only grown over the last sixty years, where refusal of orders even if clearly detrimental is a betrayal of your country and fellow servicemen rather than an exercise in judgement and consideration of consequences.

[nozzlegear]

> USAians

Americans. Please avoid this childish demonym unless you're going to commit to calling people from South African "SAians" too.

[Teever]

I’m interested to hear your perspective on why this is childish? I’ve seen this term used online for decades now and while I’ve never much cared for it, it seems pretty banal and not worth commenting on?

Do you feel offended by it personally as an American? If so, why?