I don't think he would go to war but would certainly send a LOT of angry tweets.

The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs, the Combatant Commanders, the Vice President, etc.

The President doesn't have unilateral unconstrained control over military forces.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think the jury is out

Move the us embassy to jerusalem and see how much arab hatred you incite. That does not end well......

I'm not sure he can keep he counsel nor has surrounded himself with people that will provide it, and in those instances i want to know who's going to say no

Would they? In the face of a ridiculous decision?

I'd hope it sat with them, but would they say no and what happens if they did?

This is what he would do and what the op is missing

His cabinet is full of people who"offended" him. So was the stage yesterday.

His bark is far worse than his bite. To the degree it concerns me on the right

His career has been spent making deals not blowing them up

He is far too concerned with the "brand" of President, and the "brand" of USA to move in this direction

The last President was put together such that it should have been far more concern IMO

Lots to be worried about. This one doesn't make my list

Yes, I think they would. If Pres Trump were to order troops into a country or bombings of a place with the justification that they just pissed him off, his various advisors would back him down, and his military leaders would likely refuse. They are, by and large, professional military officers who have seen actual war and who take their jobs and the responsibility of sending men and women into harm very seriously.

However, I don't think there's any chance of this happening, so it's a fairly silly scenario to worry about.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Guys like tilllerson didn't leave CEO positions to be wallflowers

So Cheney leaves Halliburton and is too involved but tilerson is a puppet?

And you and I and the vast majority of the public would require his removal

His bark is far worse than his bite. To the degree it concerns me on the right

I truly hope that this is the case.

The problem here is of course not the actions of Trump, but how what he says is interpreted elsewhere - The nuances of international diplomacy and protocol are variable and can be complicated.

Already his Tweets have caused some international commotions and confusion.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I am not going to disagree (strongly) with you (yet). Though I think I am less concerned about it (words) than you, especially as,it relates to ISIS etc al

I would like him to be more statesmanlike. A lot more. If he becomes I will give him credit. If he doesn't I will criticize.

But that doesn't make the insinuation of the OP valid

WHICH IS WHY I ALWAYS ARGUE AGAINST GIVING MORE POWER TO THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some day the power you gave up is going to be in the hands of someone you don't like.


You fucking idiots!!!!

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Funnily enough. Tillerson is someone who to date in the face of rank stupidity appears to be a potentially good pick

Energy and mnuchin not so much

I never thought or have expressed a view about cheney. Dont presume

IMO Clinton did a,lot of talking without a lot of action. W. Did a lot of action without a lot of talking. Reagan did a lot of talking (much of which gave folks the heeby Jeeves) a lot of spending and on occasion acted.

The international community took them all seriously to different degrees. That's the nature of the position

They have reacted to what trump has said because until now that's all they could react to. Like those above they will react differently in 3 months etc

I didn't give up anything

I didn't vote

I also said in either this thread or the other one i started we get exactly what we collectively deserve

I think frau merkel and brussels are shitting themselves. They had enough to deal with, with brexit, bankrupt southern states and a failing currency without trump......

Didn't mean to direct Cheney specifically at you. Just drawing the parallel

I'm quite pleased with energy and mnuchin on paper

But thanks for revealing your bias. I get it they are all stupid and now trump is a cowboy. You are checking all the old familiar boxes. Just bring in potatoe and bush lied people died and you are all set

By the way did you hear trump got el chapo

I appreciate good passive aggression as much as anyone, but you sound like the "what will we do when Obama comes for our guns?" crowd. There should be some level of embarrassment that comes with that.

Guys like tilllerson didn't leave CEO positions to be wallflowers

I agree but also, as Slowguy mentioned, the military leaders are not going to jump into a war and risk lives because Trump wants to prove a point.

As you said, Trump is bombastic on Twitter and in speeches but in every personal interaction I've seen with him he has been reasonable. I don't think he has any strong opinions on world affairs so the military leaders and some of his close aids will have a lot of influence.

Clearly they are front and center. I just couldn't recall names on the fly and slow guy had made the point

My hope is he will lean on all these people, heavily, especially in the first 18 months

Energy due to a an apparent lack of understanding of the brief

Munchies, cos he did not take the time to check his homework

Riddle me this. Setting aside my concerns about how far tillerson can distance himself from his employer of 40 years, he did the right thing in advance of being nominated, had an excellent grasp of the brief and made his case - in some instances in direct opposition to trumps

The first two failed that test. So i'm either pro or anti trump OR more likely pro / anti being incompetent or a fucking idiot when given simple instructions on declaring interests

Not difficult........

Maybe, equally you didn't go to war in syria but you are there

I don' t have guns, but if i had i'd never have been concerned about some fantasy round up

The bounds of executive orders and actions with respect to the military have been stretched, to the point on here where people think the big O did things beyond his brief

Its therefore not unreasonable to question where those lines lie

got it. Rank stupidity and incompetence and idiocy are your charges. This from the guy who puts forth a thread with one of the more preposterous premises' seen in these parts in a while. And then continues to dig despite answers from both sides about how foolish the premise itself is.

Good job, keep up the good work.

Sure, knock yourself out on the constitutional questions. But coming up with a scenario where Trump is going to war because people offended him is just juvenile passive aggression.

So much concern about Trump and International Policy/Action yet very little from the same folks about Iran and its progress toward nuclear weapons under Obama/Kerry.